Abstract
Age-related and pediatric disorders of the hip are common and confer strong risk factors for current and future disability. Because many of these disorders are associated with variations in proximal femoral structure, the study of the anthropometry of the hip has been of considerable interest to the medical research community. Imaging has become critical to the evaluation of human proximal femoral morphology in clinical research studies and in surgical practice. Using this overall approach, a simple radiograph or a computed tomography (CT) scan may be obtained, and landmarks identified either on radiographic films or digital images. As long as the physical size of the pixels is known, the distance between landmarks may be quantified. In this chapter, we will describe the use of computed tomography (CT) images for morphological assessment of the proximal femur. CT images provide a full three-dimensional assessment of the hip bone, allowing for morphometric analysis of both external and internal structures. Because of the inherently volumetric nature of the data, the orientation of the CT image can be standardized, allowing for reproducible metrics of size and distance. The discussion of CT morphology will be focused on the use of CT to characterize response of the proximal femur to aging, on the limitations of this technique for visualizing anatomic detail, and on practical considerations for using CT in studies of cadaveric specimens and in vivo human studies.
(For FEDEX, DHL etc use zip code 94107)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsAbbreviations
- CT:
-
Computed Tomography
- HU:
-
Hounsfield Unit
- 3D:
-
Three dimensional
- kVp:
-
Peak kilovoltage
- mAs:
-
Milliamperes
- mSv:
-
Millisieverts
References
Augat P, Gordon CL, Lang TF, Iida H, Genant HK. Phys Med Biol. 1998;43:2873–83.
Bagi CM, Wilkie D, Georgelos K, Williams D, Bertolini D. Bone. 1997;21:261–7.
Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J, Duda GN. J Biomech 2001;34:859–71.
Bousson V, Le Bras A, Roqueplan F, Kang Y, Mitton D, Kolta S, Bergot C, Skalli W, Vicaut E, Kalender W, Engelke K, Laredo JD. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:855–64.
Camp JJ, Karwoski RA, Stacy MC, Atkinson EJ, Khosla S, Melton LJ, Riggs BL, Robb RA. Proc SPIE. 2004;5369:74–88.
Cann CE. Radiology. 1981;140:813–5.
Cann CE, Genant HK. J Comp Assist Tomogr.1980;4:493–500.
Dunnill MS, Anderson JA, Whitehead R. J Pathol Bacteriol. 1967;94:275–91.
Faulkner KG, Glüer CC, Grampp S, Genant HK. Osteo Int. 1993;3:36–42.
Frost HM. J Bone Miner Res. 1997;12:1539–46.
Frost HM. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2003;275:1081–101.
Gluer CC, Genant HK. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1989;13:1023–35.
Goodsitt M, Hoover P, MS V, Hsueh S. Invest Radiol. 1994;29:695–704.
Kalender WA, Polacin A. Med Phy. 1991;18:910–5.
Kalender WA, Seissler W, Klotz E, Vock P. Radiology. 1990;176:181–3.
Kang Y, Engelke K, Kalender WA. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003;22:586–98.
Kang Y, Engelke K, Kalender WA. Med Image Anal. 2004;8:35–46.
Kang Y, Engelke K, Fuchs C, Kalender WA. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2005;29:533–41.
Lang T, LeBlanc A, Evans H, Lu Y, Genant H, Yu A. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:1006–12.
Lang TF, Keyak JH, Heitz MW, Augat P, Lu Y, Mathur A, Genant HK. Bone. 1997;21:101–8.
Lang TF, Leblanc AD, Evans HJ, Lu Y. J Bone Miner Res. 2006;21:1224–30.
Li W, Kezele I, Collins DL, Zijdenbos A, Keyak J, Kornak J, Koyama A, Saeed I, Leblanc A, Harris T, Lu Y, Lang T. Bone. 2007;41:888–95.
Li W, Kornak J, Harris T, Keyak J, Li C, Lu Y, Cheng X, Lang T. Bone. 2009a;44:596–602.
Li W, Kornak J, Harris TB, Keyak J, Li C, Lu Y, Cheng X, Lang T. Bone. 2009b;45:560–7.
Mayhew PM, Thomas CD, Clement JG, Loveridge N, Beck TJ, Bonfield W, Burgoyne CJ, Reeve J. Lancet. 2005;366:129–35.
Meta M, Lu Y, Keyak JH, Lang T. Bone. 2006;39:152–8.
Panjabi MM, White AA. Biomechanics in the musculoskeletal system. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2001.
Pratt NE. Clinical musculoskeletal anatomy. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Prevrhal S, Heitz M, Lowet G, Engelke K, Kalender W. Z Med Phys. 1997;7:170–7.
Prevrhal S, Engelke K, Kalender WA. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:751–64.
Riggs BL, Melton Iii LJ, 3rd, Robb RA, Camp JJ, Atkinson EJ, Peterson JM, Rouleau PA, McCollough CH, Bouxsein ML, Khosla S. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:1945–54.
Rubin GD. Eur J Radiol.2000;36:74–80.
van den Bogert AJ, Read L, Nigg BM. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31:131–42.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lang, T.F. (2012). Proximal Femoral Anthropometry by Computed Tomography. In: Preedy, V. (eds) Handbook of Anthropometry. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1788-1_42
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1788-1_42
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1787-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1788-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)