https://www.ijmhr.org/ijar.htm editor_anatomy@ijmhr.org
ISSN:       2321-4281 (E) 2321-8967 (P)

IJAR.2017.380

DOWNLOAD PDF
Table of Contents

Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 5; Issue 4.1 (October 2017)

Page No.: 4482-4487

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2017.380

FEMORAL ANTEVERSION ANGLE IN DRY FEMORA OF SOUTH INDIA BY COMPUTER ASSISTED IMAGE ANALYSIS METHOD

Amith R 1, Vinay KV *2,  Martin LA 3.

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, K. S. Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Mangaluru, Karnataka. India

*2 Professor, Department of Anatomy, K. S. Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Mangaluru, Karnataka. India

3 Professor & HOD, Department of Anatomy, K. S. Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Mangaluru, Karnataka. India.

Address for correspondence: Dr. Martin Lucas A, Professor & HOD, Department of Anatomy, K. S. Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Deralakatte, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India. Pin- 575018. Ph: +919449613535, E-Mail: drmartinlucas@gmail.com.

Abstract:

The femoral anteversion angle (FA) is defined as the angle formed by the projection of the femoral neck axis & the retrocondylar axis. In the present study, the following parameters were measured in dry femora of South Indian origin: 1) FA. 2) Side differences in FA. 3) Intra observer & inter observer reliability in measuring FA. About 170 femora that were available in the department of Anatomy were used for the study. 92 femora were of right side & 78 were of left side.  Two axes – femoral neck axis & retrocondylar axis were drawn & the angle was measured. The results were tabulated & the mean FA & standard deviation were calculated & compared between right & left side for significance. The mean FA was 11.4°  (Range between -20° to 36°). There was no significant difference in FA on right & left sides. There was good intra & inter observer reliability in measuring FA. The findings of the present study will be helpful to clinicians, therapists & researchers as ready references to FA among South Indian population.

Key words: Femur, Femoral anteversion, Head neck axis, Retrocondylar axis.

REFERENCES

  1. Standring S, Borley NR, Collins P, Crossman AR, Gatzoulis MA, Healy JC et al., Gray’s anatomy: The Anatomical basis of clinical practice. 40th UK, Elsevier Ltd; 2008;1412-15.
  2. Zalawadia A, Ruparelia S. Study of Femoral Neck Anteversion of Adult Dry Femora in Gujarat Region. NJIRM. 2010;1(3):7-9.
  3. Gulan G, Matovinović D, Nemec B, Rubinić D, Ravlić- Gulan J. Femoral neck anteversion: values, development, measurement, common problems. Coll Antropol. 2000;24:521-7.
  4. Kirby AS, Wllace WA, Moulton A, Burwell RG. Comparison of four methods for measuring femoral anteversion. Clincal Anatomy. 1993;6:280-288.
  5. Shrikant AR, Arati KM, Sant SM. The angle of femoral anteversion in Indians. J. Anat. Soc. India. 2009;58(2):161-63.
  6. Ito K, Minka MA II, Leunig M, et al., Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect: a MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:171–176.
  7. Zalawadia A, Ruparelia S. Study of Femoral Neck Anteversion of Adult Dry Femora In Gujarat Region. NJIRM. 2010;1(3):8-11.
  8. Maheswari AV, Jain AK, Singh MP, Bhargava SK. Estimation of femoral neck anteversion in adults: A comparison between preoperative, clinical and X-ray methods. Indian J Orthop. 2004;38:151–7.
  9. Jain AK, Maheshwari AV, Singh MP, Nath S, Bhargav SK. Femoral neck anteversion: A comprehensive Indian study. Indian J Orthop. 2005;39:137-144.
  10. Magilligan DJ. Calculation of the angle of anteversion by means of horizontal lateral roentgenography. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1956;38:1231–46.
  11. Saikia KC, Bhuyan S, Rongphar R. Anthropometric study of the hip joint in Northeastern region population with computed topography scan. Indian J Orthop. 2008;42:260-6.
  12. Kate BR, Robert SL. The angle of femoral torsion. Journal of Anatomical Society of India. 1963;12:8-11.
  13. Shrikant AR, Arati KM, Sant SM. The angle of femoral anteversion in Indians. J. Anat. Soc. India. 2009;58(2):164-65
  14. Reikeras O, Hoiseth A, Reigstad A, Fonstelien E. Femoral neck angles. Acta orthop. Scand. 1982;53:775-79.
  15. Yoshioka Y, Siu D, Cooke TD. The anatomy of functional axis of the femur. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 1987;69:873-880.
  16. Brouwer KJ. Torsional deformities after fractures of the femoral shaft in childhood. Acta orthopaedic scandinavica. 1981;195:15-154.
  17. Weinstein SL, Buckwaster JA. Turek’s orthopaedics in the paediatric foot. 6th Philadelphea: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005.
  18. Toogood PA, Skalak A, Cooperman DR. Proximal Femoral Anatomy in the Normal Human Population. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:876–85.
  19. Kingsley PC, Olmsted KL. A study to determine the angle of anteversion of the neck of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1948;30:745–751.
  20. Le Damany. Les torsions osseuses leur role dans la transformation des members. Journal of Anatomical Physiology. 1903;39:246-450.
  21. Pearson K, Bell J. A Study of the Long Bones of the English Skeleton. London: Cambridge University Press; 1919. Part I. The Femur, Ch. i-v,; 23-30. Part I, Section II. The Femur of Man with Special Reference to Other Primate Femora. Ch.vii-x : 239-244.
  22. Ingalls NW. Studies on femur. Am J Phys Antrop. 1924;7:207-255.
  23. Srimathi T, Muthukumar T, Anandarani VS, Sembian U, Subramanian R. A Study on Femoral Neck Anteversion and Its Clinical Correlation. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2012. Apr;6(2):155-8.
  24. Sameh S, Ali A, Ghassan A. Femoral neck anteversion & hip rotation range in healthy Iraqi children: A clinical anatomical study. Mustansiriya Medical Journal 2012. Jun; 1(1).
  25. Toogood PA, Skalak A, Cooperman DR. Proximal Femoral Anatomy in the Normal Human Population. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:876–85.
  26. Yoshioka Y, Siu D, Cooke TD. The anatomy of functional axis of the femur. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 1987;69:873-880.
  27. Eckhoff DG, Kramer RC, Watkings JJ, Alongi CA, van Greven DP. Variation in femoral Anteversion. Clinical Anatomy. 1994;7:71-75.
  28. Kweon DC, Yang SH, Park P. Comparative Study in the Femoral Anteversion Measured by CT and MR Imaging as a PACS Image Viewer. Journal of Korean Society of Medical Informatics 2002;8(04):21-27.
  29. Umebese PF,Adeyekun A, Mo in M. Radiological assessment of femoral neck-shaft and anteversion angles in adult Nigerian HIPS. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2005;12(2):106-9.
  30. Kulig K, Hanigan KH, Souza RB and Powers CM. Measurement of Femoral Torsion by Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Concurrent Validity. Phys ther. 2010;90:1641-8.
  31. Atkinson HD, Johal KS, Owen CW, Zadow S, Oakeshott RD. Differences in hip morphology between the sexes in patients undergoing hip resurfacing. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2010;5:76.
  32. Siwach RC, Dahiya S. Anthropometric study of proximal femur geometry and its clinical application. Indian J Orthop. 2003;37:247-51.
  33. Nagar M, Bhardawaj R, Prakash R. Anteversion in adult Indian femora. J Anat Soc India 2000;49:9-12.

Cite this article: Amith R, Vinay KV, Martin LA. FEMORAL ANTEVERSION ANGLE IN DRY FEMORA OF SOUTH INDIA BY COMPUTER ASSISTED IMAGE ANALYSIS METHOD. Int J Anat Res 2017;5(4.1):4482-4487. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2017.380