Accuracy in Determining Canal Flare Index Using Different Radiographical Positions for Imaging Canine Femurs
01 June 2018
08 January 2019
03 April 2019 (eFirst)
Objective The aim of this study was to compare in vitro accuracy of femoral measurements obtained from different radiographical positions with actual femoral anatomical dimensions in dogs.
Materials and Methods Craniocaudal projections of the femur in ventrodorsal position, standard craniocaudal radiographical (SR) and craniocaudal radiography with horizontal radiographical beam (HR), in addition to anatomical macroscopic measurements (A), were obtained from 45 femurs from 23 canine cadavers, for calculation of the canal flare index (CFI). The differences between the radiographical positions and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) between the CFI-SR, CFI-HR and CFI-A were evaluated by the Bland–Altman method.
Results The standard craniocaudal radiograph provided an approximate dimension of the proximal femoral morphology (mean difference: 0.121 ± 0.391) with a different CFI value (p = 0.0341) from CFI-A. The craniocaudal radiograph taken using a horizontal beam provided greater accuracy (mean difference: 0.087 ± 0.42) in our study.
Clinical Significance The craniocaudal projection using a horizontal radiographical beam was more accurate than the standard craniocaudal projection for measurement of the true anatomical dimensions of the canine femur, minimizing the influence of the technique on the CFI values.
Keywordsuncemented total hip arthroplasty - horizontal beam - femoral morphology - craniocaudal radiograph
Caroline Ribeiro de Andrade contributed to conception of study, study design, acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Bruno W. Minto, Ricardo A.R. Uscategui, and Luís GGG Dias contributed to conception of study, study design and data analysis and interpretation. Rafael M. Dreibi, Lúcia M.I. Diogo, Fernando Y.K. Kawamoto, and Guilherme G. Franco contributed to conception of study, study design, and acquisition of data. Rafael M. Dreibi, Lúcia M.I. Diogo, Fernando Y.K. Kawamoto, Guilherme G. Franco, Ricardo A.R. Uscategui, and Luís G. G. G. Dias drafted and revised the submitted manuscript. Caroline Ribeiro de Andrade and Bruno W. Minto drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.
- 1 Pernell RT, Gross RS, Milton JL. , et al. Femoral strain distribution and subsidence after physiological loading of a cementless canine femoral prosthesis: the effects of implant orientation, canal fill, and implant fit. Vet Surg 1994; 23 (06) 503-518
- 2 Chen PQ, Turner TM, Ronnigen H, Galante J, Urban R, Rostoker W. A canine cementless total hip prosthesis model. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983; (176) 24-33
- 3 Tawada K, Iguchi H, Tanaka N. , et al. Is the canal flare index a reliable means of estimation of canal shape? Measurement of proximal femoral geometry by use of 3D models of the femur. J Orthop Sci 2015; 20 (03) 498-506
- 4 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) 148-165
- 5 Sumner Jr DR, Devlin TC, Winkelman D, Turner TM. The geometry of the adult canine proximal femur. J Orthop Res 1990; 8 (05) 671-677
- 6 Husmann O, Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, de Roguin B, Argenson JN. Three-dimensional morphology of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 1997; 12 (04) 444-450
- 7 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 (01) 28-32
- 8 Casper DS, Kim GK, Parvizi J, Freeman TA. Morphology of the proximal femur differs widely with age and sex: relevance to design and selection of femoral prostheses. J Orthop Res 2012; 30 (07) 1162-1166
- 9 Rashmir-Raven AM, DeYoung DJ, Abrams Jr CF, Aberman HA, Richardson DC. Subsidence of an uncemented canine femoral stem. Vet Surg 1992; 21 (05) 327-331
- 10 Palierne S, Asimus E, Mathon D, Meynaud-Collard P, Autefage A. Geometric analysis of the proximal femur in a diverse sample of dogs. Res Vet Sci 2006; 80 (03) 243-252
- 11 Palierne S, Mathon D, Asimus E, Concordet D, Meynaud-Collard P, Autefage A. Segmentation of the canine population in different femoral morphological groups. Res Vet Sci 2008; 85 (03) 407-417
- 12 Pugliese L. Proximal femoral morphology and bone quality assessment in dogs. [Thesis (Master of Science)]. Columbus: Graduate School of The Ohio State University; The Ohio State University; 2014
- 13 Sevil-kilimci F, Kara ME. The geometry of the proximal femoral medullary canal in german shepherd and kangal dogs. Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine 2017; 43 (01) 53-62
- 14 Boymans TA, Heyligers IC, Grimm B. The morphology of the proximal femoral canal continues to change in the very elderly: implications for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2328-2332
- 15 Eckrich SG, Noble PC, Tullos HS. Effect of rotation on the radiographic appearance of the femoral canal. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9 (04) 419-426
- 16 Ganz SM, Jackson J, VanEnkevort B. Risk factors for femoral fracture after canine press-fit cementless total hip arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (06) 688-695
- 17 Carter LW, Stovall DO, Young TR. Determination of accuracy of preoperative templating of noncemented femoral prostheses. J Arthroplasty 1995; 10 (04) 507-513
- 18 Olmstead ML. Total hip replacement. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1987; 17 (04) 943-955
- 19 DeYoung DJ, DeYoung BA, Aberman HA, Kenna RV, Hungerford DS. Implantation of an uncemented total hip prosthesis. Technique and initial results of 100 arthroplasties. Vet Surg 1992; 21 (03) 168-177
- 20 Dudley RM, Kowaleski MP, Drost WT, Dyce J. Radiographic and computed tomographic determination of femoral varus and torsion in the dog. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2006; 47 (06) 546-552
- 21 Mostafa AA, Cunningham DP, Boudrieau RJ, Kowaleski MP, Griffon DJ. Influence of radiographic techniques on the measurement of femoral anteversion angles and a conformation score of pelvic limbs in Labrador retrievers. Vet Surg 2018; 47 (03) 421-430
- 22 Beck KA, Erb HN, Tapley K. Effect of sagittal plane positioning errors on measurement of the angle of inclination in dogs. Vet Surg 1992; 21 (05) 332-336
- 23 Kowaleski MP, Boudrieau R, Pozzi A. Stifle joint. In: Tobias K, Johnston S. , eds. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. St Louis, Missouri: Saunders Elsevier; 2012: 973-979
- 24 Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat 2007; 17 (04) 571-582