Analysis of X-Ray Anthropometric Parameters of the Proximal Femur from the Position of Planning Hip Joint Arthroplasty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63181/2788-4740.4.1.2026.48-69
Keywords: hip joint, radiographic anthropometry, preoperative planning, arthroplasty, osteoporosis

Abstract

Abstract: In the structure of morbidity of modern society, diseases of bones and joints occupy one of the leading positions. In the surgical treatment of severe forms of hip joint diseases, hip arthro-plasty is a radical method of treatment. At the same time, the number of total hip arthroplasties in the world is increasing annually. Preoperative planning of the implantation of the femoral component of the endoprosthesis is performed by analyzing the radiographic anthropometric parameters of the proximal femur.

Objective. Based on a comparative assessment of radiographic anthropometric characteristics of the proximal femur, to develop an algorithm for planning implantation of the femoral component of a hip joint endoprosthesis.

Materials and methods. An assessment of radiographic anthropometric parameters was performed in 232 patients (258 joints) with various nosological forms of hip joint diseases who underwent total hip arthroplasty; 26 patients underwent bilateral staged hip arthroplasty. Idiopathic coxarthrosis of the III degree (IC) was diagnosed in 42 patients, dysplastic coxarthrosis of the III degree (DC) – in 46 patients, aseptic necrosis of the femoral head of the IV degree (ANFH) – in 62, medial femoral neck fracture (MF) – in 48 patients, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) – in 32 patients, traumatic coxarthro-sis (TC) – in 2 patients. Cementless fixation of endoprostheses was used in 187 cases (72.5%), in the remaining cases – in 71 (27.5%), cement fixation of the stem was used, while a total cement endo-prosthesis was installed in 33 cases (12.8%), and in 38 cases (14.7%) an endoprosthesis with hybrid fixation was implanted. The following methods were used for qualitative and quantitative assess-ment of the structure of the proximal femur: cortical index (CI), morpho-cortical index (MCI), No-ble medullary canal narrowing index, Spotorno–Romagnoli index, assessment of the proximal femur according to Dorr L. et al.

Results. Based on the analysis of descriptive and calculated radiographic anthropometric indicators in various nosological forms of hip joint involvement, analysis of the dependence of radiographic anthropometric indicators and the designs of the installed stems of endoprostheses, an algorithm was developed for selecting the design of the femoral component of the endoprosthesis and the type of its fixation.

Discussion. Radiographic anthropometric indicators in IC revealed a decrease in bone mass in the area of implantation of the endoprosthesis stem and a tendency to a straight shape of the proximal femoral canal. In DC, the structure of the proximal femoral canal tends to a conical shape, while the loss of bone mass in the area of implantation of the endoprosthesis stem is less pronounced than in IC. In ANFN, the “normal” type of canal prevailed, which indicated the possibility of cementless fixation of the endoprosthesis stem, and in RA, the structure of the canal indicated the likelihood of cement fixation of the stem. In MF, the greatest loss of bone mass was established according to ra-diographic anthropometric indicators, which indicated a tendency to a “pipe” type of canal and ce-ment fixation of the endoprosthesis stem.

Conclusions. Descriptive and calculated methods for assessing of radiographic anthropometric pa-rameters of the proximal femur should be effectively used in combination. To obtain a full-fledged characteristic, it is necessary to assess at least one descriptive and at least two calculated radiographic anthropometric parameters of the proximal femur, which, together with the determination of the Spotorno-Romagnoli integral index, will allow to optimize plan the choice of the stem design and the type of its fixation. The developed algorithm allows to standardize the determination of radio-graphic anthropometric parameters of the proximal femur and optimize approaches to the selection of the endoprosthesis stem design and the type of its fixation, and to ensure both high-quality primary stability of the femoral component and subsequent operational longevity of the hip joint endo-prosthesis.

References

  1. Ендопротезування кульшового суглоба: монографія під ред. проф. О. Є. Лоскутова // О. Є. Лоскутов, Л. Ю. Науменко, О. О. Лоскутов та ін. – Дніпропетровськ: Ліра. – 2010. – 344 с.
  2. Епідеміологія остеоартрозу https://compendium.com.ua/uk/clinical-guidelines-uk/osteoartroz-praktichna-nastanova/glava-1-epidemiologiya-osteoartrozu/
  3. Корж М. О., Філіпенко В. А., Дідух Н. В. Остеоартроз – підходи до лікування. Вісник ортопедії травматології та протезування. 2004; 3: 75–79.
  4. Левенець В. М. Показання до тотального протезування кульшового суг-лоба // Ортопедія, травматологія та протезування. / В. М.Левенець – К.: Здоров’я, 1995. – Вип. 24.– С. 27–30.
  5. Лоскутов О. Є., Олійник О. Є. Ендопротезування кульшового суглоба: досягнення та перспективи. Лікування та діагностика. 2006; 1–2: 136–140.
  6. Лоскутов О. Є. Методи оцінки щільності кісткової тканини при плануванні типу фіксації тотального ендопротезу кульшового суглоба: методичні ре-комендації / О. Є. Лоскутов, В. Б. Макаров, Д. А. Синєгубов. – Київ, 2006. – 20 с.
  7. Фіщенко В. О., Кириченко В. І., Яремин С. Ю., Браніцький О. Ю., Карпінська О. Д. Остеоартроз кульшового суглоба. Клінічні та соціальні ас-пекти захворювання. Аналітичний огляд літератури. Частина I. Травма. 2019; 20 (1): 118–125. DOI: 10.22141/1608-1706.1.20.2019.1
  8. Яременко О. Б., Корнієнко Є. Б., Тер-Вартаньян С. Г. Досвід застосування імплантату синовіальної рідини Гілуаль Артро у лікуванні хворих на го-нартроз. Український ревматологічний журнал. 2011; 1 (43); 52–55.
  9. Яременко О. Б. Сучасна медикаментозна терапія остеоартрозу. Український ревматологічний журнал. 2003; 3 (13): 24–32.
  10. Arthritis and Arthroplasty. The Hip. / Th.E. Brown, Q. Cui, W.M. Mihalko, K.L. Saleh // Philadelphia, Saunders Elservier, 2009. – 428 p.
  11. Barnett E, Nordin BEC. Radiological assessment of bone density. British Journal of Radiology. 1961; 34: 683–692.
  12. Badley E, DesMeules M. Arthritis in Canada: An Ongoing Challenge. 2003. Ottawa, Canada.
  13. Bilateral Endoprosthetic Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty / J.Pfeil, Ph.Höhle, Ph.Rehbein // Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. – 2011. – Vol. 108. – N27. – P. 463–468.
  14. Cameron HU The Technique of Total Hip Arthroplasty. New York: Mosby Year Book, 1992.
  15. Dell'Isola A, Recenti F, Giardulli B, Lawford BJ, Kiadaliri A. Osteoarthritis year in review 2025: Epidemiology and therapy. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2025 Nov; 33(11):1300–1306. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2025.08.015. Epub 2025 Sep 4.
  16. Dorr L, Faugere MC, Mackel AM. et al. Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone. 1993; 14 (3): 231–242.
  17. Erivan R, Villatte G, Dartus J, Reina N, Descamps S, Boisgard S. Progres-sion and projection for hip surgery in France, 2008–2070: epidemiologic study with trend and projection analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019; 105 (7): 1227–1235.
  18. Espehaug B, Furnes O, Engesæter LB, Havelin LI. Hip arthroplasty in Norway 1989–2008 . Tidsskr. Nor. Legeforen. 2011; 131(16): 1543–1548.
  19. Hawker GA, Badley EM, Croxford R. et al A population-based nested case-control study of the costs of hip and knee replacement surgery. Med Care. 2009; 47: 732–741.
  20. Hoorntje A, Janssen KY, Bolder SBT, et al. The effect of total hip arthro-plasty on sports and work participation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018; 48 (7): 1695–1726.
  21. Ollivier M, Frey S, Parratte S, Flecher X, Argenson JN. Pre-operative function, motivation and duration of symptoms predict sporting participation af-ter total hip replacement. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B (8): 1041–1046.
  22. Morrison SR, Lim B, Hall AJ, Clement ND, Gee C, Walmsley P. The im-pact of waiting for hip and knee arthroplasty in people of working age: an evaluation of the workforce productivity and macroeconomic effects in patients under 65 years. Orthop Procs. 2026;108-B(SUPP_3):1–1. doi:10.1302/1358-992X.2026.3.001.
  23. Noble PC Proximal Femoral Geometry and the Design of Cementless Hip Replacement // Orthopaedics and Related Sciences. – 1990. – Vol. 1-G. – P. 86–91.
  24. Trends in Medicare Arthroplasty Procedure Volume: Projecting From 2025 to 2040. Jones CM, Potluri AS, Federico VP, Nie JW, Forlenza EM, Serino J 3rd, Della Valle CJ. J Arthroplasty. 2025; 40 (11): 2781–2790.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.05.124. Epub 2025 Jun 10.
  25. Orthopaedic surgeon workforce and volume assessment for total hip and knee replacement in the United States: preparing for an epidemic / R. Iorio [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. – 2008. – Vol. 90-A, N 7. – P. 1598–1605.
  26. PatelI, Nham F, Zalikha L, El-Othmani MM. Epidemiology of total hip ar-throplasty: demographics, comorbidities and outcomes. Arthroplasty. 2023; 5 (1): 2. doi: 10.1186/s42836-022-00156-1.
  27. Palazzo C., Ravaud J.F., Papelard A. et al. (2014) The burden of musculo-skeletal conditions. PLoS One, 9(3): e90633. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090633 Посилання: (www.umj.com.ua/uk/publikatsia-223041-shho-kazhut-eksperti-z-frantsiyi-pro-osteoartrit)
  28. Pentland V, Thompson Z, Dayimu A, Demiris N, Bohm E, Campbell D, et al. Survivorship of modern total hip replacement to 30 years: systematic re-view, meta-analysis, and extrapolation of global joint registry data.Lancet. 2026 Feb 28; 407 (10531):855–866. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)02305-0.
  29. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. /S. Kurtz, F. Mowat, K. Ong et al. // J. Bone Joint Surg. – 2005. – Vol. 87-A. – N7. – P. 1487–1497.
  30. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. / S. Kurtz, K. Ong, E. Lau et al. // J. Bone Joint Surg. – 2007. – Vol. 89-A. – N4. – P. 780–785.
  31. Singh M. Changes in trabecular pattern of the upper end of the femur as an index of osteoporosis / M. Singh, M.B. Nagrath, P.S. Maini //The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. – 1970. – Vol. 52-A. – Р. 457–467.
  32. Spotorno L, Romagnoli S. The CLS uncemented total hip replacement system. /– Thun: Werbelinie AG. – 1991. – 26 p.
  33. Total hip arthroplasty in Denmark: incidence of primary operations and revisions during 1996–2002 and estimated future demands. / A.B. Pedersen, et al. // Acta Orthop. – 2005. – Vol. 76. – N2. – P. 182–189.
  34. Huft- und Knieendoprothetik in Deutchland. Steinbruck A., et al. Ortho-paedische Nachrichten. DKOU, 10, 2019.
Published
2026-04-13
How to Cite
Syniehubov, D. A., Loskutov, O. Y., Oliinyk, O. Y., & Loskutov, O. O. (2026). Analysis of X-Ray Anthropometric Parameters of the Proximal Femur from the Position of Planning Hip Joint Arthroplasty. Transplantation and Artificial Organs, 4(1-2), 48-69. https://doi.org/10.63181/2788-4740.4.1.2026.48-69
Issue
Vol 4 No 1-2 (2026): Transplantation and artificial organs
Section
ARTICLES