DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20190023

The morphologic relationship of the lesser trochanter with the femoral neck and greater trochanter

Mustafa Akkaya, Safa Gursoy, Mehmet Emin Simsek, Cetin Isik, Halil Ibrahim Acar, Murat Bozkurt

Abstract


Background: The anatomy of the proximal femur comprises important landmarks for many orthopedic surgical procedures. However, this area exhibits morphological differences depending on race, gender and age. Besides being the insertion area of the hip flexor muscles, the lesser trochanter is also used as an angular reference in many orthopedic surgical procedures. The aim of this study is to investigate the morphologic relationship of the lesser trochanter with the femoral neck and greater trochanter.

Methods: Around 67 dry femur bones (32 left, 35 right) belonging to humans of unknown gender that belong to the Ankara University Medical Faculty, Department of Anatomy were used in this study. The morphologic relationship of the lesser trochanter (TRMI) with the femoral neck (FN) and greater trochanter (TRMJ) was studied and the results were provided in a table.

Results: The measured mean lesser trochanter and greater trochanter tip distance was 67.5±4.9mm (60mm-75mm). The angle between the tip of the lesser trochanter and the center of the femoral neck was measured as 35.050±5.060 (290-420) degrees. The distance between the tip of the lesser trochanter and the center of the femoral neck was measured as 15±2.8mm (10mm-20mm).

Conclusions: In addition to the angular relationship of the lesser trochanter with the femoral neck, its relationship in terms of distance with the greater trochanter and femoral neck are the anatomic relationships that are noteworthy for the lesser trochanter, which is used as a landmark during orthopedic surgical procedures.


Keywords


Femoral neck, Greater trochanter, Lesser trochanter

Full Text:

PDF

References


Cooper A. A treatise on dislocations and fractures of the joints. Med Chir Rev J Med Sci Anal Ser. 1823;3(12):832-57.

Hoaglund FT, Low WD. Anatomy of the femoral neck and head, with comparative data from Caucasians and Hong Kong Chinese. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;(152):10-6.

Billing L. Roentgen examination of the proximal femur end in children and adolescents; a standardized technique also suitable for determination of the collum-, anteversion-, and epiphyseal angles; a study of slipped epiphysis and coxa plana. Acta Radiol Suppl. 1954;110:1-80.

Dunlap K, Shands Jr AR, Hollister Jr LC, Gaul Jr JS, Streit HA. A new method for determination of torsion of the femur. JBJS. 1953;35(2):289-311.

Kingsley PC, Olmsted KL. A study to determine the angle of anteversion of the neck of the femur. JBJS. 1948 Jul 1;30(3):745-51.

Murphy SB, Simon SR, Kijewski PK, Wilkinson RH, Griscom NT. Femoral anteversion. J Bone Joint Surg. American volume. 1987 Oct;69(8):1169-76.

Laumonerie P, Ollivier M, LiArno S, Faizan A, Cavaignac E, Argenson JN. Which factors influence proximal femoral asymmetry? A 3D CT analysis of 345 femoral pairs. Bone Joint J. 2018 Jul;100(7):839-44.

Lazarinis S, Mattsson P, Milbrink J, Mallmin H, Hailer NP. A prospective cohort study on the short collum femoris-preserving (CFP) stem using RSA and DXA: Primary stability but no prevention of proximal bone loss in 27 patients followed for 2 years. Acta orthopaedica. 2013 Feb 1;84(1):32-9.

Yazdi H, Nazarian A, Kwon JY, Hochman MG, Pakdaman R, Hafezi P, et al. Anatomical axes of the proximal and distal halves of the femur in a normally aligned healthy population: implications for surgery. J Orthopaedic Surg Res. 2018 Dec;13(1):21.

Koo KH, Song HR, Yang JW, Yang P, Kim JR, Kim YM. Trochanteric rotational osteotomy for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: The use of MRI in the selection of patients. J Bone Joint Surg. British volume. 2001 Jan;83(1):83-9.

Hangsaphuk N, Tanavalee A. The landmarks of centers of the distal femur and the proximal tibia in sagittal plane for application in computer assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Med Assoc Thai. 2009 Dec 1;92(Suppl 6):S69-74.

Jeon I, Bae JY, Park JH, Yoon TR, Todo M, Mawatari M, et al. The biomechanical effect of the collar of a femoral stem on total hip arthroplasty. Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering. 2011 Feb 1;14(01):103-12.

de Boer FA, Sariali E. Comparison of anatomic vs. straight femoral stem design in total hip replacement-femoral canal fill in vivo. Hip International. 2017 May;27(3):241-4.

Zhang F, Tan LJ, Lei SF, Deng HW. The differences of femoral neck geometric parameters: effects of age, gender and race. Osteoporosis international. 2010 Jul 1;21(7):1205-14.

Umer M, Sepah YJ, Khan A, Wazir A, Ahmed M, Jawad MU. Morphology of the proximal femur in a Pakistani population. J Ortho Surg. 2010 Dec;18(3):279-81.

Gilligan I, Chandraphak S, Mahakkanukrauh P. Femoral neck‐shaft angle in humans: variation relating to climate, clothing, lifestyle, sex, age and side. J Anatomy. 2013 Aug;223(2):133-51.

Young EY, Gebhart J, Cooperman D, Ahn NU. Are the left and right proximal femurs symmetric?. Clin Ortho Related Res®. 2013 May 1;471(5):1593-601.

Toogood PA, Skalak A, Cooperman DR. Proximal femoral anatomy in the normal human population. Clin Ortho Related Res. 2009 Apr 1;467(4):876.

Labronici PJ, de Oliveira Castro GN, Neto SR, Gomes HC, Hoffmann R, de Azevedo Neto JN, et al. Femoral anteversion and the neck-shaft angle: relationship with hip osteoarthritis. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition). 2011 Jan 1;46(1):69-74.

Worlicek M, Weber M, Craiovan B, Wörner M, Völlner F, Springorum HR, et al. Native femoral anteversion should not be used as reference in cementless total hip arthroplasty with a straight, tapered stem: a retrospective clinical study. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2016 Dec;17(1):399.