Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · VCOT Open 2024; 07(01): e33-e39
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1782533
Original Article

The Effect of the Method of Canal Flare Index Calculation on Femoral Classification in Dogs: An Ex Vivo Study

Beatriz Maia Galetti 
1   Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Caroline Ribeiro Andrade
1   Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Bruno Watanabe Minto 
1   Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Luís Gustavo Gosuen Gonçalves Dias
1   Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Brenda Mendonça Alcântara 
1   Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Ana Carolina Valentim Hespanha 
1   Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Tryssia Scalon Magalhães Moi 
1   Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Letícia Santos Goes
1   Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was financially supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare canal flare index (CFI) values obtained by different intracortical widths in the lesser trochanter and to evaluate their influence on femoral classification.

Methods Femur radiographic images were analysed by three evaluators that calculated the CFI using three different points in the lesser trochanter: proximal, midpoint, and distal.

Results There was no interobserver influence, but there was a difference in the CFI value and femoral classification according to the calculation method. The proximal region presents higher CFI values and only 4% of ‘Stovepipe’ femurs, while the distal region presents lower CFI values and 46% of ‘Stovepipe’ femurs.

Clinical Significance The variation in level of measurement can significantly alter femoral classification, which must be considered when the CFI is used in the surgical planning of total hip arthroplasty.

Keywords

total hip arthroplasty - femur - canal flare index - dogs - ex vivo study


Publication History

Received: 11 May 2023

Accepted: 19 January 2024

Article published online:
04 April 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 King MD. Etiopathogenesis of canine hip dysplasia, prevalence, and genetics. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2017; 47 (04) 753-767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Harper TAM. Innoplant total hip replacement system. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2017; 47 (04) 935-944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 DeYoung DJ, Schiller RA. Radiographic criteria for evaluation of uncemented total hip replacement in dogs. Vet Surg 1992; 21 (02) 88-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Marcellin-Little DJ, DeYoung BA, Doyens DH, DeYoung DJ. Canine uncemented porous-coated anatomic total hip arthroplasty: results of a long-term prospective evaluation of 50 consecutive cases. Vet Surg 1999; 28 (01) 10-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Guerrero TG, Montavon PM. Zurich cementless total hip replacement: retrospective evaluation of 2nd generation implants in 60 dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38 (01) 70-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fitzpatrick N, Law AY, Bielecki M, Girling S. Cementless total hip replacement in 20 juveniles using BFX™ arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2014; 43 (06) 715-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Vezzoni L, Vezzoni A, Boudrieau RJ. Long-term outcome of Zürich cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty in 439 cases. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (08) 921-929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kwok JY, Wendelburg KL. Clinical outcomes of canine total hip replacement utilizing a BFX lateral bolt femoral stem: 195 consecutive cases (2013-2019). Vet Surg 2023; 52 (01) 51-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dyce J, Wisner ER, Wang Q, Olmstead ML. Evaluation of risk factors for luxation after total hip replacement in dogs. Vet Surg 2000; 29 (06) 524-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kidd SW, Preston CA, Moore GE. Complications of porous-coated press-fit cementless total hip replacement in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29 (05) 402-408
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hummel DW, Lanz OI, Werre SR. Complications of cementless total hip replacement. A retrospective study of 163 cases. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23 (06) 424-432
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bergh MS, Gilley RS, Shofer FS, Kapatkin AS. Complications and radiographic findings following cemented total hip replacement: a retrospective evaluation of 97 dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006; 19 (03) 172-179
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hunter S, Dyce J, Butkus L, Olmstead ML. Acetabular cup displacement after polyethylene cement interface failure: a complication of total hip replacement in seven dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16 (02) 99-104
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Serrato SAA, Rezende CMF, Vieira GLT, Cardona LA. Coxofemoral prosthesis in canines: tissue reaction and radiographic evaluation methods. J of Vet Med 2008; 15: 9-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rashmir-Raven AM, DeYoung DJ, Abrams Jr CF, Aberman HA, Richardson DC. Subsidence of an uncemented canine femoral stem. Vet Surg 1992; 21 (05) 327-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pernell RT, Gross RS, Milton JL. et al. Femoral strain distribution and subsidence after physiological loading of a cementless canine femoral prosthesis: the effects of implant orientation, canal fill, and implant fit. Vet Surg 1994; 23 (06) 503-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Liska WD. Femur fractures associated with canine total hip replacement. Vet Surg 2004; 33 (02) 164-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ganz SM, Jackson J, VanEnkevort B. Risk factors for femoral fracture after canine press-fit cementless total hip arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (06) 688-695
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mitchell MM, Hudson CC, Beale BS. Comparison of femoral stem subsidence between three types of press-fit cementless total hip replacement in dogs. Vet Surg 2020; 49 (04) 787-793
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tawada K, Iguchi H, Tanaka N. et al. Is the canal flare index a reliable means of estimation of canal shape? Measurement of proximal femoral geometry by use of 3D models of the femur. J Orthop Sci 2015; 20 (03) 498-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Casper DS, Kim GK, Parvizi J, Freeman TA. Morphology of the proximal femur differs widely with age and sex: relevance to design and selection of femoral prostheses. J Orthop Res 2012; 30 (07) 1162-1166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Husmann O, Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, de Roguin B, Argenson JN. Three-dimensional morphology of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 1997; 12 (04) 444-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN, Estève P, de Roguin B. The morphology of the proximal femur. A three-dimensional radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992; 74 (01) 28-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Meltzer LM, Dyce J, Leasure CS, Canapp Jr SO. Case factors for selection of femoral component type in canine hip arthroplasty using a modular system. Vet Surg 2022; 51 (02) 286-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sevil-Kilimci F, Kara ME. The geometry of the proximal femoral medullary canal in german shepherd and kangal dogs. J Faculty Veterinary Med Istanbul Univers 2017; 43 (01) 52-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pugliese LC. . Proximal femoral morphology and bone quality assessment in dogs. [Thesis (Master of Science)]. Columbus: Graduate School of The Ohio State University; The Ohio State University; 2014
    PubMed
  • 28 Sumner Jr DR, Devlin TC, Winkelman D, Turner TM. The geometry of the adult canine proximal femur. J Orthop Res 1990; 8 (05) 671-677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Worden NJ, Ash KJ, Ordway NR. et al. Radiographic and biomechanical assessment of three implant designs for canine cementless total hip replacement. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2020; 33 (06) 417-427
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Worden NJ, Ash KJ, Ordway NR. et al. Effect of stem positioning on biomechanical performance of a novel cementless short-stem canine total hip implant. Vet and Comp Orthop and Traumatol. 2022; 35 (00) (01) 001-009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Haidukewych GJ, Stewart C. “Intraoperative Fractures During Total Hip Arthroplasty: See It Before It Sees You.”. Seminars in Arthroplasty. Vol. 22. No. 2. WB Saunders, 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Yeung Y, Chiu KY, Yau WP, Tang WM, Cheung WY, Ng TP. Assessment of the proximal femoral morphology using plain radiograph-can it predict the bone quality?. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (04) 508-513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Chen PQ, Turner TM, Ronnigen H, Galante J, Urban R, Rostoker W. A canine cementless total hip prosthesis model. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983; (176) 24-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hanson SP, Peck JN, Berry CR, Graham J, Stevens G. Radiographic evaluation of the Zurich cementless total hip acetabular component. Vet Surg 2006; 35 (06) 550-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Palierne S, Asimus E, Mathon D, Meynaud-Collard P, Autefage A. Geometric analysis of the proximal femur in a diverse sample of dogs. Res Vet Sci 2006; 80 (03) 243-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Palierne S, Mathon D, Asimus E, Concordet D, Meynaud-Collard P, Autefage A. Segmentation of the canine population in different femoral morphological groups. Res Vet Sci 2008; 85 (03) 407-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 de Andrade CR, Minto BW, Dreibi RM. et al. Accuracy in determining canal flare index using different radiographical positions for imaging canine femurs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2019; 32 (03) 234-240
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Sevil-Kilimci F, Kara ME. Canal flare index in the canine femur is influenced by the measurement method. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2020; 33 (03) 198-204
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Christopher SA, Kim SE, Roe S, Pozzi A. Biomechanical evaluation of adjunctive cerclage wire fixation for the prevention of periprosthetic femur fractures using cementless press-fit total hip replacement. Vet J 2016; 214: 7-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Schiller TD. Biomedtrix total hip replacement systems: an overview. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2017; 47 (04) 899-916
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar