Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2020; 33(03): 198-204
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701501
Original Research
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Canal Flare Index in the Canine Femur Is Influenced by the Measurement Method

Figen Sevil-Kilimci 
1   Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey
,
Mehmet E. Kara
1   Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

28 January 2019

20 December 2019

Publication Date:
30 March 2020 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives We evaluated whether differences exist among the canal flare index (CFI) values obtained by different calculation methods in the veterinary literature.

Study Design The endosteal widths were measured from radiographic images of canine cadaveric femora. Three different formulae were used to calculate the CFI. The CFILT-M was the ratio of endosteal width at the medial aspect of the lesser trochanter (LT) to the midshaft (M), while the CFILT-I was the ratio of LT to the isthmus (I). The CFIPLT-I was the ratio of endosteal width at the proximal aspect of the lesser trochanter (PLT) and the I. The widths at each level and the CFI calculation methods were compared. Using Rashmir–Raven's method, the femora were typed as stovepipe, normal and champagne fluted. The limits of agreement were also evaluated.

Results The endosteal width at the proximal aspect of the lesser trochanter was 12% wider than at the medial aspect and 8% wider at the midshaft than at the isthmus. The CFILT-M was less than CFILT-I and CFIPLT-I by 9 and 20%, respectively. By Rashmir–Raven's classification, the CFILT-M method provided 18% stovepipe, 79% normal and 3% champagne fluted femora. The CFILT-I method showed the stovepipe, the normal and the champagne fluted as 6, 82 and 12%, respectively. The CFIPLT-I method classified the femora either normal (55%) or champagne fluted (45%). The comparison of CFILT-M with the other methods using Bland–Altman analysis showed lower mean difference for the CFILT-I than the CFIPLT-I.

Conclusion The level of width measurements at proximal femora might have an impact on the CFI values, likewise, preoperative planning procedures and the selection of a stem type in total hip arthroplasty.

Keywords

canal flare index - femur - canine

Authors’ Contributions

All authors contributed to conception of study, study design, acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Both authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.


 

  • References

  • 1 Conzemius MG, Vandervoort J. Total joint replacement in the dog. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2005; 35 (05) 1213-1231 , vii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pluot E, Davis ET, Revell M, Davies AM, James SL. Hip arthroplasty. Part 1: prosthesis terminology and classification. Clin Radiol 2009; 64 (10) 954-960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Haney DR, Peck JN. Influence of canal preparation depth on the incidence of femoral medullary infarction with Zurich Cementless Canine Total Hip arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2009; 38 (06) 673-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Guerrero TG, Montavon PM. Zurich cementless total hip replacement: retrospective evaluation of 2nd generation implants in 60 dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38 (01) 70-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fessy MH, Seutin B, Béjui J. Anatomical basis for the choice of the femoral implant in the total hip arthroplasty. Surg Radiol Anat 1997; 19 (05) 283-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Laine HJ, Lehto MU, Moilanen T. Diversity of proximal femoral medullary canal. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15 (01) 86-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Peck JN, Liska WD, DeYoung DJ, Marcellin-Little DJ. Clinical application of total hip replacement. In: Peck JN, Marcellin-Little DJ. , eds. Advanced in Small Animal Total Joint Replacement. Wiley-Blackwell; 2013: 89-104
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Baharuddin MY, Salleh ShH, Zulkifly AH, Lee MH, Mohd Noor A. Morphological study of the newly designed cementless femoral stem. BioMed Res Int 2014; 2014: 692328
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Noble PC, Kamaric E, Sugano N. , et al. Three-dimensional shape of the dysplastic femur: implications for THR. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (417) 27-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Abadie P, Lebel B, Pineau V, Burdin G, Vielpeau C. Cemented total hip stem design influence on adaptative cortical thickness and femoral morphology. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010; 96 (02) 104-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Brumat P, Pompe B, Antolič V, Mavčič B. The impact of canal flare index on leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (01) 123-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pugliese LC. Proximal Femoral Morphology and Bone Quality Assessment in Dogs. Master's Thesis, Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Christopher SA, Kim SE, Roe S, Pozzi A. Biomechanical evaluation of adjunctive cerclage wire fixation for the prevention of periprosthetic femur fractures using cementless press-fit total hip replacement. Vet J 2016; 214: 7-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Marcellin-Little DJ, DeYoung BA, Doyens DH, DeYoung DJ. Canine uncemented porous-coated anatomic total hip arthroplasty: results of a long-term prospective evaluation of 50 consecutive cases. Vet Surg 1999; 28 (01) 10-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 de Andrade CR, Minto BW, Dreibi RM. , et al. Accuracy in determining canal flare index using different radiographical positions for imaging canine femurs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2019; 32 (03) 234-240
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sevil-Kilimci F, Kara ME. The geometry of the proximal femoral medullary canal in German shepherd and Kangal dogs. J Fac Vet Med Istanbul Univ 2017; 43: 52-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ozdamar K. SPSS ile Biyoistatistik. Eskisehir: Nisan Kitapevi; 2015: 177
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E, Salama JK, Ochi T, Tullos HS. The morphology of the femur in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (04) 711-719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Yang Z, Jian W, Li ZH. , et al. The geometry of the bone structure associated with total hip arthroplasty. PLoS One 2014; 9 (03) e91058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar