Structural Peculiarities of the Proximal Femur Meta-Epiphysis in the Idiopathic Coxarthrosis According to Localization

Ali A Samaha^{1, 2}, Alexander V Ivanov³, Irena N Yashina³, Rana A Samaha⁴, Dimetry A Ivanov³ and John J Haddad^5,

¹Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Public Health, Lebanese University, Zahle, Lebanon

²Departments of Internal Medicine and Surgery, Makassed General Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon

³Department of Anatomy, Kursk State Medical University, Russia

⁴Clinical Laboratory, Faculty of Public Health, Lebanese University, Zahle, Lebanon

⁵Cellular and Molecular Physiology and Immunology Signaling Research Group, Biomedical Laboratory and Clinical Sciences Division, Department of Medical Laboratory Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon

Cite this paper:
Ali A Samaha, Alexander V Ivanov, Irena N Yashina, Rana A Samaha, Dimetry A Ivanov and John J Haddad. Structural Peculiarities of the Proximal Femur Meta-Epiphysis in the Idiopathic Coxarthrosis According to Localization. American Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 2013; 1(3):86-90. doi: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-3-5

Abstract

Background: The hip essentially represents the major weight-bearing joint of the human organism. It is conspicuously characterized by its mobility and complex origination, specific organization and development. The anatomic structures referred to as acetabulum and femoral head arise from the same primitive mesenchymal cells and, by the end of the 11^th week of gestation, the hip joint becomes fully formed and continues to develop throughout intrauterine life. During embryonic life, the femoral head grows at a faster rate than the acetabulum, and at the end of gestation the femoral head is approximately less than 50% covered, and after birth, the growth rate of the acetabular cartilage surpasses that of femoral head thus resulting in progressively increased coverage. Methods: Cartilaginous at birth, the ossification of acetabulum is set at around a three-month age period, while ossification centers of the proximal femur start to appear at 4 to 7-months. Several developmental abnormalities regarding the relationship between femoral head and acetabulum are therein described; all of those anatomic aberrations may technically result in hip instability, manifested by dislocation, subluxation, dysplasia and arthrosis. Results: From a biomechanical standpoint, three pathological conditions are shown to have arisen mainly at the region of the femoral neck: i) congenital coxa vara, ii) pseudoarthrosis of the neck of the femur and iii) coxarthrosis. All of the aforementioned conditions are caused and maintained by different types of mechanical stress and, in advanced stages, they may necessitate surgical interventions to alter the angle of the femoral neck in order to relieve the pressure at the level of the affected joint mainly during movement. Furthermore, we indicate that there is no standard to adopt regarding the surgical change of the femoral neck angle, though biomechanical assessment has to be worked out and established in each of the affected individual. Conclusion: Plain film radiography plays an important role in the assessment of a dysplastic hip, especially in adults, where operative management is essentially based on various radiographic measurements. Several average values of stresses and strains of the proximal femur were identified on the basis of Wolff’s trajectorial hypothesis, where they revealed a trabecular architectural changes and structural remodeling in response to mechanical stress. It is concluded that these pathological conditions (congenital coxa vara, pseudoarthrosis of the neck of the femur and coxarthrosis) that were shown to have arisen mainly at the region of the femoral neck may contribute to understanding pathophysiologic and patho-anatomic peculiarities of the femoral bone.

Keywords:
coxarthrosis proximal femur meta-epiphysis pseudoarthrosis system asymmetry

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Cummings RG, Cauley JA, Palermo L, Ross PD, Wasnich RD, Black D, Faulkner KG: Racial differences in hip axis length might explain racial differences in rates of hip fracture. Study of osteoporotic oractures oesearch group. Osteoporosis Int 1994, 4:226-229.
[2]	Novacheck TF: Developmental dysplasia of the hip. Pediatr Clin North Am 1996, 43:829.
[3]	Livshits G, Yakovenko K, Kletselman L, Karasik D, Kobyliansky E: Fluctuating asymmetry and morphometric variation of hand bones. Am J Phys Anthropol 1998, 107:125-136.
[4]	Auerbach BM, Ruff CB: Limb bone bilateral asymmetry: Variability and commonality among modern humans. J Hum Evol 2006, 50:203-218.
[5]	Mayhew PM, Thomas CD, Clement JG, Loveridge N, Beck TJ, Bonfield W, Burgoyne CJ, Reeve J: Relation between age, femoral neck cortical stability, and hip fracture risk. Lancet 2005, 366:129-135.
[6]	Wagner A, Sachse A, Keller M, Aurich M, Wetzel WD, Hortschansky P, Schmuck K, Lohmann M, Reime B, Metge J, Arfelli F, Menk R, Rigon L, Muehleman C, Bravin A, Coan P, Mollenhauer J: Qualitative evaluation of titanium implant integration into bone by diffraction enhanced imaging. Phys Med Biol 2006, 51:1313-1324.
[7]	Meltiz M, Guenther K-P, Gunkel S, Puhl W: Reliability of radiological measurements in the assessment of hip dysplasia in adults. Br J Radiol 1999, 72:331-334.
[8]	Spruijt S, van der Linden JC, Dijkstra PD, Wiggers T, Oudkerk M, Snijders CJ, van Keulen F, Verhaar JA, Weinans H, Swierstra BA: Prediction of torsional failure in 22 cadaver femora with and without simulated subtrochanteric metastatic defects: A CT scan-based finite element analysis. Acta Orthop 2006, 77:474-481.
[9]	Theodorou SJ, Theodorou DJ, Resnick D: Imaging findings in symptomatic patients with femoral diaphyseal stress injuries. Acta Radiol 2006, 47:377-384.
[10]	Neame R, Zhang W, Deighton C, Doherty M, Doherty S, Lanyon P, Wright G: Distribution of radiographic osteoarthritis between the right and left hands, hips, and knees. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 50:1487-1494.
[11]	Reis P, Nahal-Said R, Ravaud P, Dougados M, Amor B: Are radiological joint space widths of normal hips asymmetrical? Ann Rheum Dis 1999, 58:246-249.
[12]	Harcke HT, Lee MS, Sinning L, Clarke NM, Borns PF, MacEwen GD: Ossification center of the infant hip: sonographic and radiographic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986, 147:317- 321.
[13]	Samaha AA, Ivanov AV, Haddad JJ, Kolesnik AI, Baydoun S, Yashina IN, Samaha RA, Ivanov DA: Biomechanical and system analysis of the human femoral bone: Correlation and anatomical approach. J Orthop Surg Res 2007, 2:8.
[14]	Farmer ME, White LR, Brody JA, Bailey KR: Race and differences in hip fracture incidences. Am J Public Health 1984, 74:1374-1380.
[15]	Bass SL, Saxon L, Daly RM, Turner CH, Robling AG, Semaan E, Stuckey S: The effect of mechanical loading on the size and shape of bone in pre-, peri-, and postpubertal girls: A study tennis players. J Bone Miner Res 2002, 17:2274-2280.
[16]	Gonzalez MH, Barmada R, Fabiano D, Meltzer W: Femoral shaft fracture after hip arthroplasty: A system for classification and treatment. J South Orthop Assoc 1999, 8:240- 248.
[17]	Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR: Dislocation after total hip replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1978, 60:217-220.
[18]	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.
[19]	L’ubusky M, Mickova I, Prochazka M, Dzvincuk P, Mala K, Cizek L, Janout V: Discrepancy of ultrasound biometric parameters of the head (HC - head circumference, BPD - biparietal diameter) and femur length in relation to sex of the fetus and duration of pregnancy. Ceska Gynekol 2006, 71:169-172.
[20]	Collins EH: The concept of relative limb dominance. Hum Biol 1961, 33:293-317.
[21]	Samaha AA, Ivanov AV, Haddad JJ, Kolesnik AI, Baydoun S, Arabi MR, Yashina IN, Samaha RA, Ivanov DA: Asymmetry and structural analysis of the proximal femur meta-epiphysis: Osteoarticular anatomical pathology. J Orthop Surg Res 2008, 3:11.
[22]	Upadhyay SS, Burwell RG, Moulton A, Small PG, Wallace WA: Femoral anteversion in healthy children, application of a new method using ultrasound. J Anat 1990, 169:49-61.
[23]	Turner RS: Postoperative total hip prosthetic femoral head dislocations. Incidence, etiologic, factors and management. Clin Orthop 1994, 301:196-204.
[24]	Wisniewski SJ, Grogg B: Femoroacetabular impingement: An overlooked cause of hip pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006, 85:546-549.
[25]	Estok DM, Harris WH: Long-term results of cemented femoral revision surgery using second- generation technique. An average 11, 7-year follow-up evaluation. Clin Orthop 1994, 299:190- 202.
[26]	McCollum DE, Gray WJ: Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1990, 261:159- 170.
[27]	Morrey BF: Instability after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N America 1992, 2:237-248.
[28]	Noble PC: Proximal femoral geometry and the design of cementless hip replacements. Orthop Rel Sci 1990, 1:86-92.
[29]	Takada J,Beck TJ, Iba K, Yamashita T: Structural trends in the aging proximal femur in Japanese postmenopausal women. Bone 2007, 41:97-102.
[30]	Chiu FY: The native femoral sulcus as the guide for the medial/lateral position of the femoral component in knee arthroplasty: Normal patellar tracking in 690/700 knees--a prospective evaluation. Acta Orthop 2006, 77:501-504.
[31]	Bell KL, Loveridge N, Reeve J, Thomas CD, Feik SA, Clement JG: Super-osteons (remodeling clusters) in the cortex of the femoral shaft: Influence of age and gender. Anat Rec 2001, 264:378-386.
[32]	Hernandez-Vaquero D, Suarez-Vazquez A: Knee arthrodesis with navigation: A new indication for computer-assisted surgery? A case report. Knee 2007, 14:162-163.
[33]	Ensini A, Catani F, Leardini A, Romagnoli M, Giannini S: Alignments and clinical results in conventional and navigated total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007, 457:156-162.
[34]	Weidow J, Karrholm J, Saari T, McPherson A: Abnormal motion of the medial femoral condyle in lateral knee osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007, 454:27-34.
[35]	Manner HM, Radler C, Ganger R, Grill F: Knee deformity in congenital longitudinal deficiencies of the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 448:185-192.
[36]	Li G, Zayontz S, DeFrate LE, Most E, Suggs JF, Rubash HE: Kinematics of the knee at high flexion angles: An in vitro investigation. J Orthop Res 2004, 22:90-95.
[37]	O’Neill TW, Grazio S, Spector TD, Silman AJ: Geometric measurements of the proximal femur in UK women: Secular increase between the late 1950s and early 1990s. Osteoporos Int 1996, 6:136-140.
[38]	Cooperman DR, Wallensten R. Stulberg SD: Acetabular dysplasia in the adult. Clin orthop 1983, 175:79-85.
[39]	Harcke HT: Developmental dyslasia of the hip: A spectrum of abnormality. Pediatrics 1999, 103:152.
[40]	Weinberg H, Frankel M, Makin M: Familial epiphyseal dysplasia of lower limbs. J Bone Joint Surg 1960, 42:313-332.
[41]	Doberti A, Manhood J: A new radiological sign for early diagnosis of congenital hip dysplasia. Ann Radiol 1968, 2:276-281.
[42]	Farmer ME, White LR, Brody JA, Bailey KR: Race and differences in hip fracture incidences. Am J Public Health 1984, 74:1374-1380.
[43]	Livshits G, Yakovenko K, Kletselman L, Karasik D, Kobyliansky E: Fluctuating asymmetry and morphometric variation of hand bones. Am J Phys Anthropol 1998, 107:125-136.
[44]	Blumenfeld TJ, Glaser DA, Bargar WL, Langston GD, Mahfouz MR, Komistek RD: In vivo assessment of total hip femoral head separation from the acetabular cup during 4 common daily activities. Orthopedics 2011, 34:1.
[45]	Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CW: Femoral antetorsion: Comparing asymptomatic volunteers and patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Radiology 2012, 263:475-483.
[46]	Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CW: How useful is the alpha angle for discriminating between symptomatic patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement and asymptomatic volunteers? Radiology 2012, 264:514-521.
[47]	Maier C, Zingg P, Seifert B, Sutter R, Dora C: Femoral torsion: Reliability and validity of the trochanteric prominence angle test. Hip Int 2012, 22:534-538.
[48]	Sutter R, Zanetti M, Pfirrmann CW: New developments in hip imaging. Radiology 2012, 264:651-667.