Proximal Femoral Epiphysis: Manual Morphometry versus Digital Morphometry

It is important and necessary to know the morphometric characteristics of the proximal femur in order to reduce the risk of complications associated with surgical procedures performed in the area due to vascular, metabolic or trauma causes, and to achieve an alignment of prosthesis to be implanted....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of morphology 2015-09, Vol.33 (3), p.1114-1119
Main Authors: Menezes, Tamires Meira, Rocha, Taciano Dias de Souza, de Oliveira, Belisa Duarte Ribeiro, de Albuquerque, Yuri Mateus Lima, Caiaffo, Vitor
Format: Article
Language:eng ; por
Subjects:
ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:It is important and necessary to know the morphometric characteristics of the proximal femur in order to reduce the risk of complications associated with surgical procedures performed in the area due to vascular, metabolic or trauma causes, and to achieve an alignment of prosthesis to be implanted. The morphometric analysis has proved possible to be used, and can be a valid help to obtain certain parameters that may contribute to scientific research in several areas. For this, a good understanding of evaluation techniques and principles that can be applied to obtain reliable and valid results is needed. To measure the proximal femoral epiphysis by manual morphometry, with the aid of the caliper, and digital morphometry, with the aid of software and compare them. Twenty nine femurs were used to measure the following parameters: diameter of the femoral head in the cranio caudal axis (DFHCC) and sagittal axis (DFHS), diameter of the femoral neck cranio caudal axis (DFNCC) and sagittal axis (DFNS), length of the femoral neck (LFN) and length of the intertrochanteric line (LIL). After the measurements, the mean values were compared between the two morphometric techniques. The manual morphometry obtained the following average values: DFHCC 4.42±0.44, DFHS 4.38±0.47; DFNCC 3.10±0.35; DFNS 2.50±0.37; LFN 2.55±0.42; LIL 4.79±0.62. While the values obtained by digital morphometry were: DFHCC 3.09±0.41, DFHS 3.35±0.40; DFNCC 1.79±0.26; DFNS 2.26±0.23; LFN 1.42±0.33; LIL 3.33±0.54. All parameters measured from the manual technique showed values significantly higher (p
ISSN:0717-9502
0717-9502
DOI:10.4067/S0717-95022015000300048