Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Femoral bowing plane adaptation to femoral anteversion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Femoral bowing plane (FBP) is the unattended subject in the literature. More over the femoral shaft with its bowing is neglected in established anteversion determination methods. There is limited information about the relationship between FBP and anteversion. Thus we focused on this subject and hypothesized that there could be an adaptation of FBP to anteversion.

Materials and Methods

FBP is determined on three-dimensional solid models derived from the left femoral computerized tomography data of 47 patients which were taken before for another reason and comparatively evaluated with anteversion. There were 20 women and 27 men. The mean age of patients was 56 years (range 21–84 years).

Results

The anteversion values were found as the angle between a distal condylar axis (DCA) and femoral neck anteversion axis (FNAA) along an imaginary longitudinal femoral axis (LFA) in the true cranio-caudal view. The FBP was determined as a plane that passes through the centre-points of three pre-determinated sections on the femoral shaft. The angles between DCA, FNAA and FBP were comparatively evaluated. The independent samples t-test was used for statistical analysis. At the end, it was found that FBP lies nearly perpendicular to the anteversion axis for the mean of our sample which is around 89° in females and 93° in males (range 78–102°). On the other hand, FBP does not lie close to the sagittal femoral plane (SFP); instead, there is an average 12.5° external rotation relative to the SFP. FBP is correlated well with anteversion in terms of FBP inclination from SFP and femoral torsion (i.e., angle between FBP and femoral neck anteversion axis (P < 0.001; r = 0.680 and r = –0.682, respectively). Combined correlation is perfect (R2 = 1) as the FBP, SFP, and posterior femoral plane forms a triangle in the cranio-caudal view.

Conclusions

We found that FBP adapts to anteversion. As FBP lies close to perpendicularity for the mean, femoral component positioning perpendicular to the FBP can be an alternate way in the replacement surgeries. In addition, it has been found that FBP lies externally rotated relative to the SFP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Walensky NA. A study of anterior femoral curvature in man. Anat Rec 1965;151:559–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Clark JM, Freeman MA, Witham D. The relationship of neck orientation to the shape of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 1987;2:99–109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cibulka MT. Determination and significance of femoral neck anteversion. Phys Ther 2004;84:550–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kingsley PC, Olmsted KL. A study to determine the angle of anteversion of the neck of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1948;30A: 745–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dunn DM. Anteversion of the neck of the femur; a method of measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1952;34-B: 181–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Magilligan DJ. Calculation of the angle of anteversion by means of horizontal lateral roentgenography. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1956;38-A: 1231–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. LaGasse DJ, Staheli LT. The measurement of femoral anteversion. A comparison of the fluoroscopic and biplane roentgenographic methods of measurement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1972;86:13–5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ogata K, Goldsand EM. A simple biplanar method of measuring femoral anteversion and neck-shaft angle. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979;61:846–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jend HH. Computed tomographic determination of the anteversion angle. Premises and possibilities. Rofo 1986;144:447–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Murphy SB, Simon SR, Kijewski PK, Wilkinson RH, Griscom NT. Femoral anteversion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987;69:1169–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yoshioka Y, Cooke TD. Femoral anteversion: Assessment based on function axes. J Orthop Res 1987;5:86–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Høiseth A, Reikerås O, Fønstelien E. Aspects of femoral neck anteversion. Theoretical considerations and experimental results. Acta Radiol 1988;29:689–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Høiseth A, Reikerås O, Fønstelien E. Evaluation of three methods for measurement of femoral neck anteversion. Femoral neck anteversion, definition, measuring methods and errors. Acta Radiol 1989;30:69–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee DY, Lee CK, Cho TJ. A new method for measurement of femoral anteversion. A comparative study with other radiographic methods. Int Orthop 1992;16:277–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tönnis D, Heinecke A. Acetabular and femoral anteversion: Relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:1747–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim JS, Park TS, Park SB, Kim JS, Kim IY, Kim SI. Measurement of femoral neck anteversion in. Part 1: 3D imaging method. Med Biol Eng Comput 2000;38:603–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Corten K, Jonkergouw F, Bartels W, Lenthe HV, Bellemans J, Simon JP, et al. Bowing of the Femur: A New Reference Plane for Axial Alignment of Total Knee Replacements. ORS Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, USA; 2011. Poster No. 1247. Available from: http://www.ors.org/Transactions/57/1247.pdf. [Last assessed on 2015 Aug 12].

  18. Corten K, Jonkergouw F, Bartels W, Van Lenthe H, Bellemans J, Simon JP, et al. Bowing of the femur: A new reference plane for axial alignment of total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012;94-B Suppl XL: 34. Available from: http://www.bjjprocs.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/94-B/SUPP_XL/34. [Last assessed on 2015 Aug 12].

  19. Kang Y, Engelke K, Kalender WA. A new accurate and precise 3-D segmentation method for skeletal structures in volumetric CT data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2003;22:586–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Reikerås O, Bjerkreim I, Kolbenstvedt A. Anteversion of the acetabulum and femoral neck in normals and in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Acta Orthop Scand 1983;54:18–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Buford WL Jr., Turnbow BJ, Gugala Z, Lindsey RW. Three-dimensional computed tomography-based modeling of sagittal cadaveric femoral bowing and implications for intramedullary nailing. J Orthop Trauma 2014;28:10–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Toogood PA, Skalak A, Cooperman DR. Proximal femoral anatomy in the normal human population. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:876–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Reikerås O, Høiseth A, Reigstad A, Fönstelien E. Femoral neck angles: A specimen study with special regard to bilateral differences. Acta Orthop Scand 1982;53:775–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoaglund FT, Low WD. Anatomy of the femoral neck and head, with comparative data from Caucasians and Hong Kong Chinese. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980;152:10–6

  25. Koerner JD, Patel NM, Yoon RS, Sirkin MS, Reilly MC, Liporace FA. Femoral version of the general population: Does “normal” vary by gender or ethnicity? J Orthop Trauma 2013;27:308–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Akalin Y, Ozçelik A, Köse N, Seber S. Rotational alignment of the lower extremity in adults: No relationship with osteoarthritis of the knee was proved. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2011;22:75–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hapa O, Muratli HH, Cakici H, Gülçek S, Aksahin E, Biçimoglu A. Is there a relation between hip torsion, coverage and osteoarthritis of the knee? J Child Orthop 2009;3:27–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Widmer KH, Zurfluh B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res 2004;22:815–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yoshimine F. The safe-zones for combined cup and neck anteversions that fulfill the essential range of motion and their optimum combination in total hip replacements. J Biomech 2006;39:1315–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Malik A, Maheshwari A, Dorr LD. Impingement with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:1832–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hisatome T, Doi H. Theoretically optimum position of the prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty to fulfill the severe range of motion criteria due to neck impingement. J Orthop Sci 2011;16:229–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Emerson RH Jr. Increased anteversion of press-fit femoral stems compared with anatomic femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:477–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Botser IB, Ozoude GC, Martin DE, Siddiqi AJ, Kuppuswami S, Domb BG. Femoral anteversion in the hip: Comparison of measurement by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and physical examination. Arthroscopy 2012;28:619–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dorr LD, Wan Z, Malik A, Zhu J, Dastane M, Deshmane P. A comparison of surgeon estimation and computed tomographic measurement of femoral component anteversion in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:2598–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jiang X, Li X, Wang M, Gu X, Zhang B, Sun L, et al. Measurement of fracture malrotation after interlocking intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fracture. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2002;40:55–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Espinoza C, Sathy AK, Moore DS, Starr AJ, Reinert CM. Use of inherent anteversion of an intramedullary nail to avoid malrotation in femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2014;28:e34–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hoigné D, Hauck R, Babst R. Technique for intraoperative determination of femoral rotation with a lateral femur nail (LFN, Synthes, Oberdorf, Switzerland). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011;131:1649–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang KH, Han DY, Jahng JS, Shin DE, Park JH. Prevention of malrotation deformity in femoral shaft fracture. J Orthop Trauma 1998;12:558–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yau WP, Chiu KY, Tang WM, Ng TP. Coronal bowing of the femur and tibia in Chinese: Its incidence and effects on total knee arthroplasty planning. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2007;15:32–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Lasam MP, Lee KJ, Chang CB, Kang YG, Kim TK. Femoral lateral bowing and varus condylar orientation are prevalent and affect axial alignment of TKA in Koreans. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471:1472–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim JM, Hong SH, Kim JM, Lee BS, Kim DE, Kim KA, et al. Femoral shaft bowing in the coronal plane has more significant effect on the coronal alignment of TKA than proximal or distal variations of femoral shape. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015;23:1936–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Karakas HM, Harma A. Femoral shaft bowing with age: A digital radiological study of Anatolian Caucasian adults. Diagn Interv Radiol 2008;14:29–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Kinikli, 20160, Denizli, Turkey

    Fahir Demirkan

  2. Departments of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, School of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Kinikli, 20160, Denizli, Turkey

    Alp Akman, Nuran Sabir, Murat Oto, Cagdas Yorukoglu & Esat Kiter

Authors
  1. Alp Akman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fahir Demirkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nuran Sabir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Murat Oto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cagdas Yorukoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Esat Kiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alp Akman.

Additional information

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akman, A., Demirkan, F., Sabir, N. et al. Femoral bowing plane adaptation to femoral anteversion. IJOO 51, 49–54 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.197219

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.197219

Key words

MeSH terms

Search

Navigation