Skip to main content

The physiological range of femoral antetorsion

Skeletal Radiology volume 42, pages 1501–1505 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Intramedullary nailing is a common method for fixation of femoral diaphyseal shaft fractures. However, postoperative malrotation does occur in 20–30 % of patients, as intraoperative assessment of antetorsion remains difficult. The estimated average antetorsion angle is 15°. However, it is not clear whether antetorsion correlates with individual characteristics such as age, gender, or femoral length. This information may help surgeons to better estimate the correct target rotation before and during surgery.

Materials and methods

The antetorsion of 211 healthy femurs was measured using torsion difference CTs according to the technique published by Jend. Correlations with age, gender, and femoral length were calculated.

Results

A significant negative correlation of age and antetorsion was found for women aged 0–20. Older women and men did not show any correlation between antetorsion and age. There was no correlation between antetorsion and femoral length. Mean values differed between 17.8° ± 8.9° and 22.7° ± 10.7° in women and 15.3° ± 8.0° and 21.4° ± 9.7° in men.

Conclusions

Antetorsion is mostly independent of body height and age, the latter except in women younger than 20. The so-far-estimated physiologic antetorsion of about 15° seems to be a little higher in most people.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Winquist RA, Hansen Jr ST, Clawson DK. Closed intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. A report of five hundred and twenty cases. 1984. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(12):1912.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wolinsky PR, McCarty E, Shyr Y, Johnson K. Reamed intramedullary nailing of the femur: 551 cases. J Trauma. 1999;46(3):392–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bråten M, Terjesen T, Rossvoll I. Torsional deformity after intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Measurement of anteversion angles in 110 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(5):799–803.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jaarsma RL, Pakvis DF, Verdonschot N, Biert J, van Kampen A. Rotational malalignment after intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(7):403–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bråten M, Terjesen T, Rossvoll I. Femoral shaft fractures treated by intramedullary nailing. A follow-up study focusing on problems related to the method. Injury. 1995;26(6):379–83.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mikulicz J. Über individuelle Formdifferenzen am Femur und an der Tibia des Menschen. Arch Anat Physiol 1878; 351–404.

  7. Pfeifer T, Mahlo R, Franzreb M, et al. Computed tomography in the determination of leg geometry. In Vivo. 1995;9(3):257–61.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Strecker W, Franzreb M, Pfeiffer T, Pokar S, Wikström M, Kinzl L. [Computerized tomography measurement of torsion angle of the lower extremities]. Unfallchirurg. 1994;97(11):609–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Waidelich HA, Strecker W, Schneider E. [Computed tomographic torsion-angle and length measurement of the lower extremity. The methods, normal values and radiation load]. Rofo. 1992;157(3):245–51.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Moulton A, Upadhyay SS. A direct method of measuring femoral anteversion using ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1982;64(4):469–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rippstein J. [Determination of the antetorsion of the femur neck by means of two X-ray pictures]. Z OrthopIhreGrenzgeb. 1955;86(3):345–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cordier W, Katthagen BD. [Femoral torsional deformities]. Orthopade. 2000;29(9):795–801.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ruwe PA, Gage JR, Ozonoff MB, DeLuca PA. Clinical determination of femoral anteversion. A comparison with established techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(6):820–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jend HH. [Computed tomographic determination of the anteversion angle. Premises and possibilities]. Rofo. 1986;144(4):447–52.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Weiner DS, Cook AJ, Hoyt Jr WA, Oravec CE. Computed tomography in the measurement of femoral anteversion. Orthopedics. 1978;1(4):299–306.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Schneider B, Laubenberger J, Wildner M, Exne V, Langer M. [NMR tomographic measurement of femoral ante-torsion and tibial torsion]. Rofo. 1995;162(3):229–31.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Strecker W, Hoellen I, Keppler P, Suger G, Kinzl L. [Correcting torsion after intramedullary nailing osteosynthesis of the lower extremity]. Unfallchirurg. 1997;100(1):29–38.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Vaidya R, Anderson B, Elbanna A, Colen R, Hoard D, Sethi A. CT scanogram for limb length discrepancy in comminuted femoral shaft fractures following IM nailing. Injury. 2012;43(7):1176–81.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Westhoff B, Jager M, Krauspe R. Axes of the legs in childhood. What is pathologic? Orthopade. 2007;36(5):485–98.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ledermann K. Die physiologischen Achsen der unteren Extremität.MüllerM.E. : Posttraumatische Achsenfehlstellungen an der unteren Extremität.Verlag Hans Huber Bern. 1967: p. 9–16.

  21. Christie J, Court-Brown C, Kinninmonth AWG, Howie CR. Intramedullary locking nails in the management of femoralshaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;70-B:206–10.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kempf I, Grosse A, Beck G. Closed locked intramedullary nailing. Its application to comminuted fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(5):709–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Strecker W, Suger G, Kinzl L. [Local complications of intramedullary nailing]. Orthopade. 1996;25(3):274–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Strecker W, Keppler P, Kinzl L, Hehl G. [Osteotomy of the proximal femur for correction of post-traumatic changes]. Chirurg. 1998;69(11):1153–60.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Debrunner AM. Zusammenfassung des Round-Table-Gesprächs (KongressBern 1967).

  26. de Alba Cuevas C, Guille JT, Bowen JR, Harcke HT. Computed tomography for femoral and tibial torsion in children with clubfoot. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;353:203–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fabry G, MacEwen GD, Shands Jr AR. Torsion of the femur. A follow-up study in normal and abnormal conditions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55(8):1726–38.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Shands Jr AR, Steele MK. Torsion of the femur; a follow-up report on the use of the Dunlap method for its determination. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1958;40-A(4):803–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bleck EE. Orthopaedic management in cerebral palsy. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schiebler TH, Schmidt W. Lehrbuch der gesamten Anatomie des Menschen. Berlin: Springer; 1987.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Schünke M, Schulte E, Schumacher U, Voll M, Wesker K. Prometheus Lernatlas der Anatomie. Stuttgart: Thieme. 2005.

  32. Kulig K, Harper-Hanigan K, Souza RB, Powers CM. Measurement of femoral torsion by ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging: concurrent validity. Phys Ther. 2010;90(11):1641–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Starker M, Hanusek S, Rittmeister M, Thoma W. [Validation of computerized tomography antetorsion angle measurement of the femur]. Z OrthopIhreGrenzgeb. 1998;136(5):420–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Jacquemier M, Glard Y, Pomero V, Viehweger E, Jouve JL, Bollini G. Rotational profile of the lower limb in 1319 healthy children. Gait Posture. 2008;28(2):187–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tamari K, Tinley P, Briffa K, Aoyagi K. Ethnic-, gender-, and age-related differences in femorotibial angle, femoral antetorsion, and tibiofibular torsion: cross-sectional study among healthy Japanese and Australian Caucasians. Clin Anat. 2006;19(1):59–67.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No external funding was received for this project.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Trauma Department, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Strasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Sebastian Decker, Eduardo M. Suero, Nael Hawi, Christian W. Müller, Christian Krettek & Musa Citak

Authors
  1. Sebastian Decker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eduardo M. Suero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nael Hawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian W. Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Krettek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Musa Citak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Decker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Decker, S., Suero, E.M., Hawi, N. et al. The physiological range of femoral antetorsion. Skeletal Radiol 42, 1501–1505 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1687-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1687-3

Keywords

  • Femur
  • Antetorsion
  • Physiologic range
  • Age
  • Femur fracture
  • Distribution