Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of the geometry of proximal femur for short cephalomedullary nail placement

An observational study in dry femora and living subjects

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

Abstract

Background

Intramedullary devices have increasingly become popular and are widely used for fixation of unstable intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. These implants have been designed taking into consideration of the anthropometry of the western population which varies from those of other ethnic groups. This study was carried out to assess the geometry of proximal femur for the placement of short cephalomedullary nails in our subset of patients and suggest suitable design modifications based on these parameters.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in the following three groups: (1) Anthropometric study of 101 adult human dry femora, (2) radiographs of the same femora, and (3) radiographs of the contralateral uninjured limb of 102 patients with intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures. In Group 1, standard anthropometric techniques were used to measure neck shaft angle (NSA), minimal neck width (NW), trochanteric offset, and distance from the tip of greater trochanter (GT) to the lower border of lesser trochanter on the femoral shaft axis (distance X). In Group 2 and 3, the NSA, minimal NW, NW at 130° and 135°, trochanteric shaft angle (TSA), trochanteric offset, distance X, distance between the tip of GT and the point where the neck axis crosses the line joining the tip of the GT to the lower border of the lesser trochanter on the femoral shaft axis (distance Y), and canal width at 10, 15, and 20 cm from tip of GT were measured on standard radiographs. The values obtained in these three groups were pooled to obtain mean values. Various parameters of commonly used short cephalomedullary nails available for fixation of pertrochanteric fractures were obtained. These were compared to the results obtained to suggest suitable modifications in the nail designs for our subset of patients.

Results

The mean parameters observed were as follows: NSA 128.07° ± 4.97 (range 107°–141°), minimum NW 29.0 ± 2.8 mm (range 22–42 mm), NW at 130° 30.12 ± 2.86 mm (range 22.2–42.5 mm), NW at 135° 30.66 ± 3.02 mm (range 22.8–40.3 mm), TSA 10.45° ± 2.34° (range 3°–15.5°), distance X 65.73 ± 6.45 mm (range 28.6–88.4 mm), distance Y 38 ± 4.91 mm (range 16.6–55.3 mm), and canal width at 10, 15, and 20 cm from the tip of GT 13.46 ± 2.34 mm, 11.40 ± 2.27 mm, and 11.64 ± 2.04 mm, respectively.

Conclusion

The measurements of the proximal femur are not significantly different from other ethnic groups and are adequate to accept the current commonly available short cephalomedullary nails. However, certain modifications in the presently available short cephalomedullary nail designs are recommended for them to better fit the anatomy of our subset of population (a) two nails of 125° and 135°, (b) the medio-lateral angle at the level of 65 mm from the tip of the nail, (c) two femoral neck screw placements (35 and 45 mm from the tip of the nail), and (d) five different sizes of distal width for better fit in canal (9–13 mm).

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. Chiu CK, Chan CY, Singh VA. Is the femoral neck geometry adequate for placement of the proximal femoral nail in the Malaysian population? A review of 100 cases. Med J Malaysia 2009;64:22–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Streubel PN, Wong AH, Ricci WM, Gardner MJ. Is there a standard trochanteric entry site for nailing of subtrochanteric femur fractures? J Orthop Trauma 2011;25:202–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Koval KJ. Intramedullary nailing of proximal femur fractures. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2007;36 4 Suppl: 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mishra AK, Chalise P, Singh RP, Shah RK. The proximal femur–A second look at rational of implant design. Nepal Med Coll J 2009;11:278–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ravichandran D, Muthukumaravel N, Jaikumar R, Das H, Rajendran M. Proximal femoral geometry in Indians and its clinical applications. J Anat Soc India 2011;60:6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Siwach RC, Dahiya S. Anthropometric study of proximal femur geometry and its clinical application. Indian J Orthop 2003;37:247–51.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Menezes DF, Gamulin A, Noesberger B. Is the proximal femoral nail a suitable implant for treatment of all trochanteric fractures? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;439:221–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lv C, Fang Y, Liu L, Wang G, Yang T, Zhang H, et al. The new proximal femoral nail antirotation-Asia: Early results. Orthopedics 2011;34:351.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Soucanye de Landevoisin E, Bertani A, Candoni P, Charpail C, Demortiere E. Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFN-ATM) fixation of extra-capsular proximal femoral fractures in the elderly: Retrospective study in 102 patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012;98:288–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schipper IB, Bresina S, Wahl D, Linke B, Van Vugt AB, Schneider E. Biomechanical evaluation of the proximal femoral nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;405:277–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Takigami I, Matsumoto K, Ohara A, Yamanaka K, Naganawa T, Ohashi M, et al. Treatment of trochanteric fractures with the PFNA (proximal femoral nail antirotation) nail system–Report of early results. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2008;66:276–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lakhwani OP. Correlation of trochanter-shaft angle in selection of entry site in antegrade intramedullary femoral nail. ISRN Orthop 2012;2012:431374.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jain AK, Maheshwari AV, Nath S, Singh MP, Nagar M. Anteversion of the femoral neck in Indian dry femora. J Orthop Sci 2003;8:334–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Singh PI, Bhasin ML. Anthropometry. 1st ed. Delhi: Educational Publishers and Booksellers; 1968. p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ryder CT, Crane L. Measuring femoral anteversion; the problem and a method. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1953;35-A: 321–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Leung KS, Procter P, Robioneck B, Behrens K. Geometric mismatch of the gamma nail to the Chinese femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;323:42–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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  Google Scholar 

  18. Patron MS, Duthie RA, Sutherland AG. Proximal femoral geometry and hip fractures. Acta Orthop Belg 2006;72:51–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Parsons FG. The characters of the English thigh-bone. J Anat Physiol 1914;48(Pt 3):238–67.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Schofield G. Metric and morphological features of the femur of the New Zealand Maori. J R Anthropol Inst 1959;89:89.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Davivongs V. The femur of the Australian aborigine. Am J Phys Anthropol 1963;21:457–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Walensky NA, O’Brien MP. Anatomical factors relative to the racial selectivity of femoral neck fracture. Am J Phys Anthropol 1968;28:93–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tan CK. Some characteristics of the Chinese femur. Singapore Med J 1973;14:505–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dragojevic MD, Grkovic I, Bobinac D, Dujmovic M, Nemec B. Relationship between femoral anteversion and neck shaft angle. Coll Antropol 1996;20:111–7.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Osorio H, Schorwer K, Coronado C, Delgado J, Aravena P. Proximal femoral epiphysis anatomy in Chilean population. Int J Morphol 2012;30:258–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Baharuddin MY, Kadir M.A, Zulkifly AH, Saat A, Aziz AA, Lee MM. Morphology study of the proximal femur in Malay population. Int J Morphol 2011;29:1321–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Saikia KC, Bhuyan SK, Rongphar R. Anthropometric study of the hip joint in northeastern region population with computed tomography scan. Indian J Orthop 2008;42:260–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT. Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73:330–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Halder SC. The gamma nail for peritrochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74:340–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Raviraj A, Anand A, Chakravarthy M, Pai S. Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) for treatment of osteoporotic proximal femoral fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2012;22:301–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, India

    Mahindra Nagar

  2. Department of Radiology, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, India

    Shuchi Bhatt

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, 110 095, India

    Devendra Pathrot,  Rehan Ul Haq & Aditya N. Aggarwal

Authors
  1. Devendra Pathrot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rehan Ul Haq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aditya N. Aggarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mahindra Nagar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuchi Bhatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rehan Ul Haq.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pathrot, D., Ul Haq, R., Aggarwal, A.N. et al. Assessment of the geometry of proximal femur for short cephalomedullary nail placement. IJOO 50, 269–276 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.181785

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.181785

Key words

MeSH terms

Search

Navigation