Welcome to International Journal of Anatomy and Research

Type of Article: Original Research

Year: 2016 | Volume 4 | Issue 2 | Page No. 2416-2422

Date of Publication: 30-06-2016

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2016.220

TERATOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF CARBOPLATIN: A MORPHOLOGICAL STUDY IN MICE

Sendhoorani ¹, Ravichandran Doraiswamy ^*2, Arun T. Mithrason ³.

¹ 2nd Year MBBS Student, Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

^*2 Professor, Department of Anatomy, Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

³ Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

Address: Dr. Ravichandran Doraiswamy, 38/1, Visweswarayya 2nd street, Church road, KK Pudur, Saibaba colony, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu- 641038, India.
E-Mail: drravianatmd@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Background and aims: The percentage of elderly people above 65 years of age & incidence of Osteoarthritis in India is expected to be very high by 2040 AD. The final weapon in the management armamentarium of osteoarthritis is Total Hip Replacement. The femoral component design plays a major role in the success of the surgery. The anatomy of the upper end of femur varies with different populations. The study is aimed to provide guidelines for future design of the femoral stem for Indian population.
Materials and Methods: 200 dry human bones were studied.  The parameters including:  Femoral head off set, femoral head diameter, femoral neck diameter, canal width, endosteal and extra cortical width, ante version angle and neck shaft angle were studied using UTHSCSA Image Tool software. The results were analyzed using statistical package SPSS 17.0 version.
Results: The average femoral head offset, neck shaft angle and ante version angle was 40.75 mm, 131.48 degrees and 10.69 degrees respectively. The head diameter and neck diameter was 41.77 mm and 28.66 mm respectively. The canal width was 34.87 mm, 49.27 mm and 30.09 mm respectively at the level, 20 mm above the level and 20 mm below the level of lesser trochanter,  endosteal width at the level of isthmus was 15.9 mm and extra cortical width at the level of isthmus was 14.03 mm
Conclusion: The guideline values obtained for the parameters, particularly the femoral head offset, ante version angle and neck shaft angle are strongly recommended for designing femoral stems.
Key Words: Femoral Offset, Femoral Diameter, Femoral Stem, Osteoarthritis.

REFERENCES

1. Marlene Fransen, Lisa Brudgett, Lyn March, Damian Hoy, Ester Pensegra and Peter Brooks.  The epidemiology of osteoarthritis in Asia:  International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases. 2011;14:113-121.

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

3. Noble PC, Jerry W, Alexander JW et al. The anatomical basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop 1988;235:148-65.

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(4):278-280.

5. Rawal BR. Rahul Ribeiro, Rajesh Malhotra and Naresh Bhatnagar. Anthropometric measurements to design best-fit femoral stem for the Indian population. Indian J Orthop.2012;46(1):46-53.

6. Najjar EI, McWilliams ER. IL,Charles C Thomas. Forensic anthropology: The structure, Morphology and variations of human bone and dentition. Springfield, 1978:106-112.

7.  Ericksen MF. Ageing changes in the medullary cavity of the proximal femur in American black and whites. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1979;51:563-9.

8.  Nurzenski MK, Briffa NK, Price RI, Khoo BC, Devine A, Beck TJ, et al. Geometric indices of bone strength are associated with physical activity and dietary calcium intake in healthy older women. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:416-24. 

9. Lecerf. G, Fessy M.H et al. Femoral offset: Anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2009;95:210-219.

10. Kate B.R. The angle of the femoral neck in Indians.  Eastern Anthropologist. 1967;20:54-60.

11. Alana Tamar Olieveira de Sousa et al. Software Image Tool 3.0 As an instrument for measuring wounds. Journal of Nursing UFPE On Line.10.5205/reuol.3111-24934-1LE.0610201233. 28/10/2015

12. Huiskes R. Some fundamental aspects of human joint replacement: analyses of stresses and heat conduction in bone-prosthesis structures. Acta Orthop Scand. 1980;235:148-165.

13. Rubin. P.J. The Morphology of the proximal femur: A three dimensional radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1992;74-B:28-32.

14. Hussman O, Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, de Roguin B, Argenson JN. Three-dimensional morphology of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty. 1987;1:444-50.

15. Mahaisavariya B, Sitthiseripratip K, Tongdee T, Bohez EL, loten JV, Oris P. Morphological study of the proximal femur: A new method of geometrical assessment using 3-dimensional reverse engineering. Med Engg Phys. 2002;24:617-22.

16. Bulent Atilla, Ali Oznur et al. Osteometry of the femora in Turkish individuals: a morphometric study in 114 cadaveric femora as an anatomic basis of femoral component design. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2007;41(1):64-68.

17. Charles MN, Bourne RB et al. Soft tissue balancing of the hip: the role of femoral offset restoration. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2004;86:1078-88.

18.  McGrory BJ, Morrey BF et al. Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1995;77:865-89.

19. Amstutz HC. Complications of total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 1970;72:123-37.

20. Walker PS, Robertson DD. Design and fabrication of cementless hip stems. Clin Orthop 1988;235:25-34.

Sendhoorani, Ravichandran Doraiswamy, Arun T. Mithrason. A STUDY ON THE PROXIMAL FEMORAL GEOMETRY FOR STANDARDIZING THE FEMORAL COMPONENT DESIGN TO SUIT INDIAN NEEDS IN TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT. Int J Anat Res 2016;4(2):2416-2422. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2016.220