ÖMER SUNKAR BİÇER, Gazi HURİ, MUSTAFA TEKİN, Akif MİRİOĞLU, AHMET AYDIN, İsmet TAN

Anatomic compatibility of femoral intramedullary implants: a cadaveric study

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the morphology of the proximal and diaphysis of femur, distribution of neck version, neck-shaft angles, and radius of anterior curvature in a Turkish population to compare with that of femoral intramedullary implants.Methods: Using 84 cadaveric femora, three-dimensional (3D) modeling was performed with a light scanner, data were transferred to Solidworks 2013 software (Solidworks, Waltham, MA, USA) to determine the variability in the femoral length (FL), neck version, neck-shaft angle (NSA), and anterior bow. Three independent observers' measurements were tested with a reliability analysis and then evaluated using Cronbach's alpha value, after which they were compared with the neck-shaft angles, and the radii of curvature (RAC) of intramedullary femoral nails, as stated on the official manufacturer websites. Results: Mean FL, femoral neck anteversion (FNA), and NSA had ranges of 346.1-454.1 mm, -11.3-40.4°, and 105.9-149.0°, respectively, and RAC was between 1.0 and 1.2 m. The correlation coefficient and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 0.89 (CI 0.849-0.928), 0.86 (CI 0.799-0.904), and 0.85 (95% CI 0.785-0.898) for FL, FNA, and NSA, respectively. FNA was <10° in 32 femora (37.6%) and >14° 38 (44.7%). NSA was between 130° and 135° in 40 femora (47.1%), and RAC ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 m in 76 femora (91.6%), <1 m in 38 (45.8%), and >1.5 m in 7 (8.4%).Conclusion: FNA and NSA show a wide distribution, mostly out of the range of intramedullary implants. There is a need for implants that are compatible with a range of NSAs and versions, so that they are suitable for use with a variety of morphologies

___

Egol KA, Chang EY, Cvitkovic J, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ. Mismatch of current intramedullary nails with the anterior bow of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 2004;18:410-5.

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

Scolaro JA, Endress C, Mehta S. Prevention of cortical breach during placement of an antegrade intramedullary femoral nail. Orthopedics 2013;36:688-92.

Ostrum RF, Levy MS. Penetration of the distal femoral an- terior cortex during intramedullary nailing for subtrochan- teric fractures: a report of three cases. J Orthop Trauma 2005;19:656-60.

Kanawati AJ, Jang B, McGee R, Sungaran J. The influ- ence of entry point and radius of curvature on femoral intramedullary nail position in the distal femur. J Orthop 2014;11:68-71.

Bazylewicz DB, Egol KA, Koval KJ. Cortical encroach- ment after cephalomedullary nailing of the proximal fe- mur: evaluation of a more anatomic radius of curvature. J Orthop Trauma 2013;27:303-7.

Lecerf G, Fessy MH, Philippot R, Massin P, Giraud F, Flecher X, et al. Femoral offset: anatomical concept, defi- nition, assessment, implications for preoperative templat- ing and hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2009;95:210-9.

Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R, Kim YJ, Beaule PE, Morgan P, et al. Radiographic evaluation of the hip has lim- ited reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:666-75.

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

Thiagarajah S, Macinnes S, Yang L, Doherty M, Wilkinson JM. Quantifying the characteristics of the acetabulum and proximal femur using a semi-automated hip morphology software programme (SHIPS). Hip Int 2013;23:330-6.

Nishizawa Y, Matsumoto T, Araki D, Nagamune K, Mat- sushita T, Kurosaka M, et al. Matching articular surfaces of selected donor and recipient sites for cylindrical os- teochondral grafts of the femur: quantitative evaluation using a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Am J Sports Med 2014;42(3):658-64.

You F LZ, Luo H, Wang P. Three dimensional model anal- ysis and processing. Berlin: Springer; 2010.

Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN, Estève P, de Roguin B. The morphology of the proximal femur. A three-dimensional radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74:28-32.

Unnanuntana A, Toogood P, Hart D, Cooperman D, Grant RE. Evaluation of proximal femoral geometry using digital photographs. J Orthop Res 2010;28:1399-404.

Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew DT, Granberry WM, Tullos HS. The anatomic basis of femoral compo- nent design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;235:148-65.

Atilla B, Oznur A, Cağlar O, Tokgözoğlu M, Alpaslan M. Osteometry of the femora in Turkish individuals: a mor- phometric study in 114 cadaveric femora as an anatomic basis of femoral component design. [Article in Turkish] Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2007;41:64-8.

Harma A, Germen B, Karakas HM, Elmali N, Inan M. The comparison of femoral curves and curves of contemporary intramedullary nails. Surg Radiol Anat 2005;27:502-6.