Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBicer, Omer Sunkar
dc.contributor.authorHuri, Gazi
dc.contributor.authorTekin, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorMirioglu, Akif
dc.contributor.authorAydin, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorTan, Ismet
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-12T06:47:49Z
dc.date.available2019-12-12T06:47:49Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn1017-995X
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2016.15.0204
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11655/17063
dc.description.abstractObjective: The purpose of this study was to describe the morphology of the proximal and diaphysis of femur, distribution of neck version, neck-shaft angles, and radius of anterior curvature in a Turkish population to compare with that of femoral intramedullary implants. Methods: Using 84 cadaveric femora, three-dimensional (3D) modeling was performed with a light scanner, data were transferred to Solidworks 2013 software (Solidworks, Waltham, MA, USA) to determine the variability in the femoral length (FL), neck version, neck-shaft angle (NSA), and anterior bow. Three independent observers' measurements were tested with a reliability analysis and then evaluated using Cronbach's alpha value, after which they were compared with the neck-shaft angles, and the radii of curvature (RAC) of intramedullary femoral nails, as stated on the official manufacturer websites. Results: Mean FL, femoral neck anteversion (FNA), and NSA had ranges of 346.1-454.1 mm, -11.3-40.4 degrees, and 105.9-149.0 degrees, respectively, and RAC was between 1.0 and 1.2 m. The correlation coefficient and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 0.89 (CI 0.849-0.928), 0.86 (CI 0.799-0.904), and 0.85 (95% CI 0.785-0.898) for FL, FNA, and NSA, respectively. FNA was <10 degrees in 32 femora (37.6%) and >14 degrees 38 (44.7%). NSA was between 130 degrees and 135 degrees in 40 femora (47.1%), and RAC ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 m in 76 femora (91.6%), <1 m in 38 (45.8%), and >1.5 m in 7 (8.4%). Conclusion: FNA and NSA show a wide distribution, mostly out of the range of intramedullary implants. There is a need for implants that are compatible with a range of NSAs and versions, so that they are suitable for use with a variety of morphologies.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTurkish Assoc Orthopaedics Traumatology
dc.relation.isversionof10.3944/AOTT.2016.15.0204
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectOrthopedics
dc.titleAnatomic Compatibility of Femoral Intramedullary Implants: A Cadaveric Study
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.relation.journalActa Orthopaedica Et Traumatologica Turcica
dc.contributor.departmentOrtopedi ve Travmatoloji
dc.identifier.volume50
dc.identifier.issue2
dc.identifier.startpage222
dc.identifier.endpage226
dc.description.indexWoS
dc.description.indexScopus


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record