Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29(03): 220-226
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-15-11-0181
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Influence of chondrodystrophy and brachycephaly on geometry of the humerus in dogs

Emily J. Smith
1   Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
,
Denis J. Marcellin-Little
2   Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
,
Ola L. A. Harrysson
3   Edward P. Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
,
Emily H. Griffith
4   Department of Statistics, College of Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
› Author AffiliationsThe authors thank Ms. Alice Harvey for preparing the illustration. This manuscript represents a portion of the dissertation submitted by Ms. Smith to the North Carolina State University Department of Biomedical Engineering as partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Doctor of Philosophy degree. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation graduate research fellowship program under NSF Grant No. DGE-1252376.
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 10 November 2015

Accepted: 24 February 2016

Publication Date:
17 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: To assess the geometry of canine humeri as seen on radiographs in chondrodystrophic dogs (CD) and brachycephalic dogs (BD) compared to non-chondrodystrophic dogs (NCD).

Methods: Mediolateral (ML) and craniocaudal (CC) radiographs of skeletally mature humeri were used (CD [n = 5], BD [n = 9], NCD [n = 48]) to evaluate general dimensions (length, width, canal flare, cortical thickness), curvature (shaft, humeral head, and glenoid), and angulation (humeral head and condyle). Measurements from CD, BD, and NCD were compared.

Results: Mean humeral length was shorter in CD (108 mm) compared to BD (184 mm, p = 0.001) and NCD (183 mm, p <0.001). Craniocaudal cortical thickness at 70% of humeral length and ML cortical thickness at 30%, 50%, and 70% of humeral length were less in CD compared to BD and NCD. Humeral shaft curvature was greater in CD (9.9°) compared to BD (6.7°, p = 0.023). The ratio of glenoid radius of curvature / humeral length was greater for CD (11.1%) compared to NCD (9.7%, p = 0.013). The ratio of humeral width / humeral length was greater for BD (29.4%) compared to NCD (26.2%, p = 0.043). The ratio of glenoid length / humeral length was greater in CD (18.0%) than BD (16.4%, p = 0.048) and NCD (15.6%, p <0.001).

Clinical significance: Bone proportions and curvature in CD differ from BD and NCD. Differences are minor and unlikely to have clinical significance.

Keywords

Dog - anatomy - humerus
 

  • References

  • 1 Wood MC, Fox DB, Tomlinson JL. Determination of the mechanical axis and joint orientation lines in the canine humerus: A Radiographic cadaveric study. Vet Surg 2014; 43: 414-417.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zhu D CC, Conners RW, Swecker Jr WS . Canine bone shape analysis by use of a radiographic image-classification system. Am J Vet Res 1992; 53: 1090-1095.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Markel MD, Sielman E. Radiographic study of homotypic variation of long bones in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54: 2000-2003.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sumner DR, Turner TM, Galante JO. Symmetry of the canine femur: implications for experimental sample size requirements. J Orthop Res 1988; 6: 758-765.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kwan TW, Marcellin-Little DJ, Harrysson OL. Correction of biapical radial deformities by use of bi-level hinged circular external fixation and distraction osteogenesis in 13 dogs. Vet Surg 2014; 43: 316-329.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Martínez S, Fajardo R, Valdés J. et al. Histopathologic study of long-bone growth plates confirms the basset hound as an osteochondrodysplastic breed. Can J Vet Res 2007; 71: 66-69.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Riecks TW, Birchard SJ, Stephens JA. Surgical correction of brachycephalic syndrome in dogs: 62 cases (1991-2004). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007; 230: 1324-1328.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hussein AK, Sullivan M, Penderis J. Effect of brachycephalic, mesaticephalic, and dolichocephalic head conformations on olfactory bulb angle and orientation in dogs as determined by use of in vivo magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Vet Res 2012; 73: 946-951.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wahl CJ, Westermann RW, Blaisdell GY. et al. An association of lateral knee sagittal anatomic factors with non-contact ACL injury: sex or geometry?. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: 217-226.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Weinmann JP, Sicher H. Developmental Disturbances of the Skeleton. Bone and Bones: Fundamentals of Bone Biology. 2nd ed. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company 1955; 164-167.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hall BK. Maintenance Awry - Achondroplasia. In: Bones and Cartilage: Developmental Skeletal Biology. San Diego, CA; Elsevier Academic Press: 2005: 358-266.
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Seron MA, Yochum TR, Barry MS. et al. Skeletal Dysplasias. In Yochum TR, Rowe LJ. editors Essentials of Skeletal Radiology 3rd ed.. Philadelphia: LWW; 2004: 721-725.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Johnson DR. The growth of femur and tibia in three genetically distinct chondrodystrophic mutants of the house mouse. J Anat 1977; 125: 267-275.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kitoh H, Kitakoji T, Kurita K. et al. Deformities of the elbow in achondroplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84: 680-683.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Breit S, Kunzel W, Seiler S. Postnatal modelling of the humeroantebrachial contact areas of radius and ulna in dogs. Anat Histol Embryol 2005; 34: 258-264.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Janach KJ, Breit SM, Kunzel WW. Assessment of the geometry of the cubital (elbow) joint of dogs by use of magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67: 211-218.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jezyk PF. Constitutional Disorders of the Skeleton in Dogs and Cats. In Newton CD, Nunamaker DM. editors Textbook of Small Animal Orthopaedics. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1985: 637-645.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Alpak H, Mutuş R, Onar V. Correlation analysis of the skull and long bone measurements of the dog. Ann Anat 2004; 186: 323-330.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Marcellin-Little DJ, DeYoung BA, Doyens DH. et al. Canine uncemented porous-coated anatomic total hip arthroplasty: results of a long-term prospective evaluation of 50 consecutive cases. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 10-20.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ganz SM, Jackson J, VanEnkevort B. Risk factors for femoral fracture after canine press-fit cementless total hip arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 688-695.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rashmir-Raven AM, DeYoung DJ, Abrams Jr CF . et al. Subsidence of an uncemented canine femoral stem. Vet Surg 1992; 21: 327-331.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 McPherson EJ, Friedman RJ, An YH. et al. Anthropometric study of normal glenohumeral relationships. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1997; 6: 105-112.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Fox DB, Knapp JL. Association of radiographic anatomic parameters of the canine stifle in the sagittal plane and cranial cruciate ligament injury. In: 4th World Veterinary Orthopaedic Congress & 41st Veterinary Orthopedic Society Conference Abstracts. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 28: A6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Demos HA, Briones MS, White PH. et al. A biomechanical comparison of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation in normal and osteoporotic cadaveric bone. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 783-788.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wahnert D, Schroder R, Schulze M. et al. Biomechanical comparison of two angular stable plate constructions for periprosthetic femur fracture fixation. Int Orthop 2014; 38: 47-53.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lanting B, MacDermid J, Drosdowech D. et al. Proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of treatment modalities. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008; 17: 42-54.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gustke K. Short stems for total hip arthroplasty: initial experience with the Fitmore stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94: 47-51.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bojescul JA, Xenos JS, Callaghan JJ. et al. Results of porous-coated anatomic total hip arthroplasty without cement at fifteen years: a concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85: 1079-1083.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fitmore Hip Stem [PDF Available on internet; 97-0551-001-00 0810-H05]. USA: Zimmer, Inc.; 2008/2009 [cited March 17, 2016] Available at: http://www.zimmer.com/content/dam/zimmer-web/documents/en-US/pdf/medical-professionals/hip/Fitmore-Hip-Stem-Brochure-97-0551-001-00-04-2010-US-MARKETS-ONLY.pdf
    PubMed
  • 30 Accolade II Femoral Hip System Technology Guide [PDF available on internet; LA2HTG Rev. 1]. Mahwah, New Jersey (USA): Stryker Orthopaedics; 2012 [cited on March 17, 2016] Available at: http://literature.ortho.stryker.com/files/LA2HTG.pdf
    PubMed
  • 31 Faizan A, Wuestemann T, Nevelos J. et al. Development and verification of a cementless novel tapered wedge stem for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 235-240.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Goodrich ZJ, Norby B, Eichelberger BM. et al. Thoracic limb alignment in healthy labrador retrievers: evaluation of standing versus recumbent frontal plane radiography. Vet Surg 2014; 43: 791-803.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sisson D, Schaeffer D. Changes in linear dimensions of the heart, relative to body weight, as measured by M-mode echocardiography in growing dogs. Am J Vet Res 1991; 52: 1591-1596.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Matsumura N, Ogawa K, Kobayashi S. et al. Morphologic features of humeral head and glenoid version in the normal glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2014; 23: 1724-1730.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Desai SJ, Deluce S, Johnson JA. et al. An anthropometric study of the distal humerus. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2014; 23: 463-469.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 McDonald CP, Peters TM, King GJW. et al. Computer assisted surgery of the distal humerus can employ contralateral images for pre-operative planning, registration, and surgical intervention. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2009; 18: 469-477.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU. et al. Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: Relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82: 1594-1602.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Alolabi B, Studer A, Gray A. et al. Selecting the diameter of a radial head implant: an assessment of local landmarks. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2013; 22: 1395-1399.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Reis Silva H, Uosyte R, Clements DN. et al. Computed tomography and positive contrast computed tomographic arthrography of the canine shoulder: normal anatomy and effects of limb position on visibility of soft tissue structures. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2013; 54: 470-477.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Taylor SD, Tsiridis E, Ingham E. et al. Comparison of human and animal femoral head chondral properties and geometries. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2011; 226: 55-62.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Davidson PT, Bullock-Saxton J, Lisle A. Anthropometric measurements of the scapula, humerus, radius and ulna in Labrador dogs with and without elbow dysplasia. Aust Vet J 2008; 86: 425-428.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Meachen-Samuels J. Comparative scaling of humeral cross-sections of felids and canids using radiographic images. J Mamm Evol 2010; 17: 193-209.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Paley D. Normal lower limb alignment and joint orientation. In Paley D, Herzenberg J. editors Principles of deformity correction Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2002: 1-18.
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Fox DB, Tomlinson JL, Cook JL. et al. Principles of uniapical and biapical radial deformity correction using dome osteotomies and the center of rotation of angulation methodology in dogs. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 67-77.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar