Three-dimensional assessment of curvature, torsion, and canal flare index of the humerus of skeletally mature nonchondrodystrophic dogs

Emily J. Smith Department of Biomedical Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695

Search for other papers by Emily J. Smith in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MS
,
Denis J. Marcellin-Little Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607

Search for other papers by Denis J. Marcellin-Little in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DEDV
,
Ola L. A. Harrysson Edward P. Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695

Search for other papers by Ola L. A. Harrysson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, and
Emily H. Griffith College of Engineering, and the Department of Statistics, College of Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695

Search for other papers by Emily H. Griffith in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess 3-D geometry of the humerus of dogs and determine whether the craniocaudal canal flare index (CFI) is associated with specific geometric features.

SAMPLE CT images (n = 40) and radiographs (38) for 2 groups of skeletally mature nonchondrodystrophic dogs.

PROCEDURES General dimensions (length, CFI, cortical thickness, and humeral head offset), curvature (shaft, humeral head, and glenoid cavity), version (humeral head and greater tubercle), and torsion were evaluated on CT images. Dogs were allocated into 3 groups on the basis of the craniocaudal CFI, and results were compared among these 3 groups. The CT measurements were compared with radiographic measurements obtained for another group of dogs.

RESULTS Mean ± SD humeral head version was −75.9 ± 9.6° (range, −100.7° to −59.4°). Mean mechanical lateral distal humeral angle, mechanical caudal proximal humeral angle, and mechanical cranial distal humeral angle were 89.5 ± 3.5°, 50.2 ± 4.5°, and 72.9 ± 7.8°, respectively, and did not differ from corresponding radiographic measurements. Mean humeral curvature was 20.4 ± 4.4° (range, 9.6° to 30.5°). Mean craniocaudal CFI was 1.74 ± 0.18 (range, 1.37 to 2.10). Dogs with a high craniocaudal CFI had thicker cranial and medial cortices than dogs with a low craniocaudal CFI. Increased body weight was associated with a lower craniocaudal CFI. Radiographic and CT measurements of craniocaudal CFI and curvature differed significantly.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE CT-based 3-D reconstructions allowed the assessment of shaft angulation, torsion, and CFI. Radiographic and CT measurements of shaft curvature and CFI may differ.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess 3-D geometry of the humerus of dogs and determine whether the craniocaudal canal flare index (CFI) is associated with specific geometric features.

SAMPLE CT images (n = 40) and radiographs (38) for 2 groups of skeletally mature nonchondrodystrophic dogs.

PROCEDURES General dimensions (length, CFI, cortical thickness, and humeral head offset), curvature (shaft, humeral head, and glenoid cavity), version (humeral head and greater tubercle), and torsion were evaluated on CT images. Dogs were allocated into 3 groups on the basis of the craniocaudal CFI, and results were compared among these 3 groups. The CT measurements were compared with radiographic measurements obtained for another group of dogs.

RESULTS Mean ± SD humeral head version was −75.9 ± 9.6° (range, −100.7° to −59.4°). Mean mechanical lateral distal humeral angle, mechanical caudal proximal humeral angle, and mechanical cranial distal humeral angle were 89.5 ± 3.5°, 50.2 ± 4.5°, and 72.9 ± 7.8°, respectively, and did not differ from corresponding radiographic measurements. Mean humeral curvature was 20.4 ± 4.4° (range, 9.6° to 30.5°). Mean craniocaudal CFI was 1.74 ± 0.18 (range, 1.37 to 2.10). Dogs with a high craniocaudal CFI had thicker cranial and medial cortices than dogs with a low craniocaudal CFI. Increased body weight was associated with a lower craniocaudal CFI. Radiographic and CT measurements of craniocaudal CFI and curvature differed significantly.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE CT-based 3-D reconstructions allowed the assessment of shaft angulation, torsion, and CFI. Radiographic and CT measurements of shaft curvature and CFI may differ.

Contributor Notes

Ms. Smith's present address is Carl Vinson VA Medical Center, 1826 Veterans Blvd, Dublin, GA 31021.

Dr. Marcellin-Little's present address is Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Address correspondence to Dr. Marcellin-Little (djmarcel@ucdavis.edu).
  • 1. 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-A:15941602.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Desai SJ, Deluce S, Johnson JA, et al. An anthropometric study of the distal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 463469.

  • 3. 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: 235240.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Alolabi B, Studer A, Gray A, et al. Selecting the diameter of a radial head implant: an assessment of local landmarks. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: 13951399.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Husmann O, Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, et al. Three-dimensional morphology of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 1997; 12: 444450.

  • 6. Schumann S, Tannast M, Nolte LP, et al. Validation of statistical shape model based reconstruction of the proximal femur—a morphology study. Med Eng Phys 2010; 32: 638644.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Boileau P, Walch G. The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997; 79: 857865.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Bouza-Rodríguez JB, Miramontes-Sequeiros LC. Three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of the bovine humerus. Appl Bionics Biomech 2014; 11: 1324.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Maddox TW, May C, Keeley BJ, et al. Comparison between shoulder computed tomography and clinical findings in 89 dogs presented for thoracic limb lameness. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2013; 54: 358364.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Kalff S, Gemmill T. Proximal focal humeral deficiency in a large breed dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25: 532536.

  • 11. Morgan JP, Pool RR, Miyabayashi T. Primary degenerative joint disease of the shoulder in a colony of Beagles. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1987; 190: 531540.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Fitzpatrick N, Yeadon R, Smith TJ, et al. Shoulder arthrodesis in 14 dogs (Erratum published in Vet Surg 2013; 42:229). Vet Surg 2012; 41: 745754.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. 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: 414417.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Smith EJ, Marcellin-Little DJ, Harrysson OL, et al. Influence of chondrodystrophy and brachycephaly on geometry of the humerus in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29: 220226.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Rashmir-Raven AM, DeYoung DJ, Abrams CF Jr, et al. Subsidence of an uncemented canine femoral stem. Vet Surg 1992; 21: 327331.

  • 16. 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: 316329.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. 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: 15911596.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. McPherson EJ, Friedman RJ, An YH, et al. Anthropometric study of normal glenohumeral relationships. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1997; 6: 105112.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Churchill RS. Stemless shoulder arthroplasty: current status. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 14091414.

  • 20. Sparrow T, Fitzpatrick N, Meswania J, et al. Shoulder joint hemiarthroplasty for treatment of a severe osteochondritis dissecans lesion in a dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 27: 243248.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Flurin PH, Roche CP, Wright TW, et al. Correlation between clinical outcomes and anatomic reconstruction with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2015; 73: S92S98.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Kadum B, Wahlstrom P, Khoschnau S, et al. Association of lateral humeral offset with functional outcome and geometric restoration in stemless total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25: e285e294.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Renkawitz T, Weber T, Dullien S, et al. Leg length and offset differences above 5 mm after total hip arthroplasty are associated with altered gait kinematics. Gait Posture 2016; 49: 196201.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Ganz SM, Jackson J, VanEnkevort B. Risk factors for femoral fracture after canine press-fit cementless total hip arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 688695.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002; 11: 331338.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Krahl VE, Evans FG. Humeral torsion in man. Am J Phys Anthropol 1945; 3: 229253.

  • 27. Roberts SN, Foley AP, Swallow HM, et al. The geometry of the humeral head and the design of prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991; 73: 647650.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Pearl ML. Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14: 99S104S.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Ginja MM, Gonzalo-Orden JM, Jesus SS, et al. Measurement of the femoral neck anteversion angle in the dog using computed tomography. Vet J 2007; 174: 378383.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Yasukawa S, Edamura K, Tanegashima K, et al. Evaluation of bone deformities of the femur, tibia, and patella in Toy Poodles with medial patellar luxation using computed tomography. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29: 2938.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Walch G, Boileau P. Prosthetic adaptability: a new concept for shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999; 8: 443451.

  • 32. Lädermann A, Denard PJ, Boileau P, et al. Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 22052213.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Postacchini R. Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: how much prosthetic geometry is necessary? (Erratum published in J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21: 1803). J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009; 18: 366370.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34. Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Robertson DD, et al. Geometric analysis of selected press fit prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement. J Orthop Res 2002; 20: 192197.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35. Irlenbusch U, End S, Kilic M. Differences in reconstruction of the anatomy with modern adjustable compared to second-generation shoulder prosthesis. Int Orthop 2011; 35: 705711.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36. Malik A, Maheshwari A, Dorr LD. Impingement with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 18321842.

  • 37. Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Winter U, et al. Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14: 111S121S.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38. Roe SC, Sidebotham C, Marcellin-Little DJ. Acetabular cup liner and prosthetic head exchange to increase the head diameter for management of recurrent luxation of a prosthetic hip in two dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2015; 28: 6066.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39. Pearl ML, Volk AG. Coronal plane geometry of the proximal humerus relevant to prosthetic arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1996; 5: 320326.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40. Sarierler M, Yildirim IG, Ocal MK. Effect of triple pelvic osteotomy on the proximal femoral geometry in dysplastic dogs. Res Vet Sci 2012; 92: 142146.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41. Kuo TY, Skedros JG, Bloebaum RD. Comparison of human, primate, and canine femora: implications for biomaterials testing in total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 40: 475489.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42. Gulledge BM, Marcellin-Little DJ, Levine D, et al. Comparison of two stretching methods and optimization of stretching protocol for the piriformis muscle. Med Eng Phys 2014; 36: 212218.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43. Peltz CD, Zauel R, Ramo N, et al. Differences in glenohumeral joint morphology between patients with anterior shoulder instability and healthy, uninjured volunteers. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24: 10141020.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44. Dunlap AE, Gines JA, Simone KM, et al. What is your diagnosis? Glenoid osteochondritis dissecans in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2017; 250: 975978.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45. Gustke K. Short stems for total hip arthroplasty: initial experience with the Fitmore stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94: 4751.

  • 46. Akpinar F, Aydinlioglu A, Tosun N, et al. A morphometric study on the humerus for intramedullary fixation. Tohoku J Exp Med 2003; 199: 3542.

  • 47. Su XY, Zhao Z, Zhao JX, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of the curvature of the femoral canal in 426 Chinese femurs. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 318391.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48. Bloebaum RD, Ota DT, Skedros JG, et al. Comparison of human and canine external femoral morphologies in the context of total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res 1993; 27: 11491159.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49. Palierne S, Asimus E, Mathon D, et al. Geometric analysis of the proximal femur in a diverse sample of dogs. Res Vet Sci 2006; 80: 243252.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50. Casper DS, Kim GK, Parvizi J, et al. Morphology of the proximal femur differs widely with age and sex: relevance to design and selection of femoral prostheses. J Orthop Res 2012; 30: 11621166.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51. Boymans TA, Heyligers IC, Grimm B. The morphology of the proximal femoral canal continues to change in the very elderly: implications for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 23282332.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement