Morphology of the proximal femur differs widely with age and sex: Relevance to design and selection of femoral prostheses

Journal of Orthopaedic Research

Volumn 30, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1162-1166

  Casper, David S ^a   Kim, Gregory K ^a   Parvizi, Javad ^a   Freeman, Theresa A ^b  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

canal flare; joint arthroplasty; proximal femur

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPRESSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORTICAL BONE; FEMALE; FEMUR; FEMUR HEAD PROSTHESIS; GEOMETRY; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; KIDNEY CORTEX; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEX; TOPOGRAPHY; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; X RAY FILM;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; BODY MASS INDEX; FEMALE; FEMUR; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FITTING; SEX FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84861095558     PISSN: 07360266     EISSN: 1554527X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jor.22052     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. McLaughlin JR, Lee KR,. 1997. Total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented femoral component. Excellent results at ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 79-B: 900.
2. Parvizi J, Keisu KS, Hozack WJ, et al. 2004. Primary total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented femoral component: a long-term study of the Taperloc stem. J Arthroplasty 19: 151-156.
3. McLaughlin JR, Lee KR,. 2008. Total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg 90: 1290-1296.
4. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, et al. 2009. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467: 2606-2612.
5. Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, et al. 1988. The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235: 148-165.
6. Noble PC, Box GG, Kamaric E, et al. 1995. The effect of aging on the shape of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 316: 31-44.
7. Dorr LD, Faugere MC, Mackel AM, et al. 1993. Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of the proximal femur. Bone 14: 231-242.
8. Fessy MH, Seutin B, Béjui J,. 1997. Anatomical basis for the choice of the femoral implant in the total hip arthroplasty. Surg Radiol Anat 19: 283-286.
9. Laine HJ, Lehto MU, Moilanen T,. 2000. Diversity of proximal femoral medullary canal. J Arthroplasty 15: 86-92.
10. Lecerf G, Fessy MH, Philippot R, et al. 2009. Femoral offset: anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95: 210-219.
11. Soballe K, Hansen ES, B-Rasmussen H, et al. 1992. Tissue ingrowth into titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated implants during stable and unstable mechanical conditions. J Orthop Res 10: 285-299.
12. Kroon PO, Freeman MA,. 1992. Hydroxyapatite coating of hip prostheses: effect on migration into the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74: 518-522.
13. Berry DJ,. 2002. Management of periprosthetic fractures: the hip. J Arthroplasty 17: 11-13.
14. Husmann O, Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, et al. 1997. Three-dimensional morphology of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 12: 444-450.
15. Khang G, Choi K, Kim CS, et al. 2003. A study of Korean femoral geometry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 406: 116-122.
16. Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, Aubaniac JM, et al. 1992. The morphology of the proximal femur. A three-dimensional radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74: 28-32.
17. Liang TJ, You MZ, Xing PF, et al. 2010. Uncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 50 years: a 6- to 10-year follow-up study. Orthopedics 16: 236-239.
18. McLaughlin JR, Lee KR,. 2011. Total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented tapered femoral component in patients younger than 50 years. J Arthroplasty 26: 9-15.
19. Kinov P, Radl R, Zacherl M, et al. 2007. Correlation between thigh pain and radiological findings with a proximally porous-coated stem. Acta Orthop Belg 73: 618-624.