Journal of Orthopedics and Joint Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Evaluation of Neck-shaft Angle and Anteversion in Dry Femora of Adult Indian Population: A Descriptive Analysis

Akash Hosthota, Manikandan Thandapani, N Deen M Ismail, Aravind J Devendrappa, Mohammed Shahid

Keywords : Anteversion, Axial computed tomography, Biplanar radiography, Neck-shaft angle, Proximal femoral angles

Citation Information : Hosthota A, Thandapani M, Ismail ND, Devendrappa AJ, Shahid M. Evaluation of Neck-shaft Angle and Anteversion in Dry Femora of Adult Indian Population: A Descriptive Analysis. 2024; 6 (2):103-108.

DOI: 10.5005/jojs-10079-1152

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-06-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aims and background: Proximal femoral angles, specifically the neck-shaft angle (NSA) and anteversion (AV), are pivotal factors in understanding hip joint biomechanics, the changes in different hip pathologies and guiding various orthopedic interventions. Our study aims to evaluate these angles in the subcontinent of India. Materials and methods: A total of 50 dry samples of femora were selected at the Anatomy Department, Madras Medical College. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established based on the study design. The AV and NSA were measured using three methods—direct measurement, biplanar radiography, and axial computed tomography (CT). Comparative analyzes were performed to assess the precision of these measurement techniques. Results: Our study revealed that the X-ray method was the most accurate in measuring the NSA among the three techniques. The measurements of AV were more accurate using the X-ray method than the CT method. Additionally, a prevalence of 20% for retroversion was identified in the Indian population, signifying a higher occurrence compared to prior studies. Conclusion: These findings underscore the critical importance of precise angle measurements in orthopedic hip procedures. The study's data supports informed preoperative planning and the enhancement of orthopedic interventions, particularly in the Indian population. Clinical significance: The study's findings on AV and NSA in the adult Indian population provide significant insights for orthopedic interventions, emphasizing the need for accurate measurements to enhance preoperative planning and optimize surgical outcomes.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Gujar S, Vikani S, Parmar J, et al. A correlation between femoral neck shaft angle to femoral neck length *correspondence info. Int J Biomed Adv Res 2013;5. DOI: 10.7439/ijbar
  2. Saikia KC, Bhuyan SK, Rongphar R. Anthropometric study of the hip joint in northeastern region population with CT scan. Indian J Orthop 2008;42(3):260–266. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.39572
  3. Le Damany. Les torsions osseuses leur role dans la transformation des members. J Anat Physiol 1903;39: 246–450. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200112000-00006
  4. Durham HA. AV of the femoral neck in the normal femur: and its relation to congenital dislocation of the hip. JAMA 1915;3:223–224. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1915.02580030015006
  5. Trinkaus, Erik. “FNAs of the Qafzeh-Skhul early modern humans, and activity levels among immature near eastern middle paleolithic hominids.” J Hum Evolution 1993;25:393–416.
  6. Humphry. The angle of the neck with the shaft of the femur at different periods of life and under different circumstances. J Anat Physiol 1889;23(Pt 2):273–282. PMID: 17231788.
  7. Anderson JY, Trinkaus E. Patterns of sexual, bilateral and interpopulational variation in human femoral NSA. J Anat 1998;192(Pt 2):279–285. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-7580.1998.19220279.x
  8. Kingsley PC, Olmsted KL. A study to determine the angle of AV of the neck of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1948;30A(3):745–751. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-194830030-00021
  9. Ogata K, Goldsand EM. A simple biplanar method of measuring femoral A and VNSA. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979;61(6A):846–851. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-197961060-00007
  10. Murphy SB, Simon SR, Kijewski PK, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987;69(8):1169–1176. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-198769080-00010
  11. Miller F, Merlo M, Liang Y, et al. Femoral version and NSA. J Pediatr Orthop 1993;13(3):382–388. DOI: 10.1097/01241398-199305000-00021
  12. Dunlap K, Shands AR Jr, Hollister LC Jr, et al. A new method for determination of torsion of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1953;35-A(2):289–311. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-195335020-00002
  13. Jarrett DY, Oliveira AM, Zou KH, et al. Axial oblique CT to assess femoral AV. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(5):1230–1233. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3702
  14. Mootha AK, Saini R, Dhillon MS, et al. MRI evaluation of femoral and acetabular AV in developmental dysplasia of the hip. A study in an early walking age group. Acta Orthop Belg 2010;76(2):174–180. PMID: 20503942.
  15. Parsons FG. The characters of the English thigh-bone. J Anat Physiol 1914;48(Pt 3):238–267. PMID: 17232995.
  16. Kate BR. AV versus torsion of the femoral neck. Acta Anat (Basel) 1976;94(3):457–463. DOI: 10.1159/000144576
  17. Yoshioka Y, Siu D, Cooke TD. The anatomy and functional axes of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987;69(6):873–880. PMID: 3597501.
  18. Toogood PA, Skalak A, Cooperman DR. Proximal femoral anatomy in the normal human population. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467(4):876–885. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0473-3
  19. Teo PC, Kassim AY, Thevarajan K. A 45-degree radiographic method for measuring the neck shaft angle and anteversion of the femur: a pilot study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2013;21(3):340–346. DOI: 10.1177/230949901302100316
  20. Umebese PF, Adeyekun A, Moin M. Radiological assessment of femoral NSA and AV angles in adult Nigerian HIPS. Niger Postgrad Med J 2005;12(2):106–109. DOI: 10.4103/1117-1936.175262
  21. Kulig K, Harper-Hanigan K, Souza RB, et al. Measurement of femoral torsion by USG and MRI: concurrent validity. Phys Ther 2010;90(11):1641–1648. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20090391
  22. Hoaglund FT, Low WD. Anatomy of the femoral neck and head, with comparative data from Caucasians and Hong Kong Chinese. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980;(152):10–16. PMID: 7438592.
  23. Maheshwari AV, Jain AK, Singh MP, et al. Estimation of FNA in adults: a comparison between preoperative, clinical and X-ray methods. Indian J Orthop 2004;38:151–157. DOI: 10.1007/s10776-003-0648-5
  24. Jain AK. “FNA: a comprehensive Indian study.” Ind J Orthop 2005;39:137. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.36685
  25. Zalawadia A. “Study of FNA of adult dry femora in gujarat region.” Nat J Int Res Med 2010;1:7–11.
  26. Srimathi T, Muthukumar T, Anandarani VS, et al. A study on FNA and its clinical correlation. J Clin Diagn Res 2012;6(2):155–158. DOI: JCDR/2012/3794:1981
  27. Siwach RC, Dahiya S. Anthropometric study of proximal femur geometry and its clinical application. Indian J Orthop. 2003;37(4):247–251. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712831
  28. Inam M, Satar A, Arif M, et al. Proximal femoral geometry in Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa population. J Pak Orthop Assoc 2011;23(2):71–74.
  29. Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, Aubaniac JM, et al. The morphology of the proximal femur. A three-dimensional radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74(1):28–32. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.74b1.1732260
  30. Liang J, Li K, Liao Q, et al. Anatomic data of the proximal femur and its clinical significance. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2009;34(8):811–814. PMID: 19734594.
  31. Atkinson HD, Johal KS, Willis-Owen C, et al. Differences in hip morphology between the sexes in patients undergoing hip resurfacing. J Orthop Surg Res 2010;5:76. DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-5-76
  32. Isaac B, Vettivel S, Prasad R, et al. Prediction of the femoral NSA from the length of the femoral neck. Clin Anat. 1997;10(5):318–323. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2353(1997)10:5<318::AID-CA5>3.0.CO;2-M
  33. Ravichandran D, Muthukumaravel N, Jaikumar R, et al. Proximal femoral geometry in Indians and its clinical applications. J Anat Soc India 2011;60(1):6–12. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-2778(11)80003-1
  34. Deshmukh TR. Prediction of femur bone geometry using anthropometric data of indian population: a numerical approach. J Med Sci 2010;10:12–18. DOI: 10.3923/jms.2010.12.18
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.