Quantifying the anatomical variability of the proximal femur - Scorecard - MDSpire

Quantifying the anatomical variability of the proximal femur

  • By

  • Angelika Ramesh

  • Johann Henckel

  • Alister Hart

  • Anna Di Laura

  • December 19, 2025

  • 0 min

Share

Clinical Scorecard: Assessing the Anatomical Diversity of the Proximal Femur

At a Glance

CategoryDetail
ConditionOsteoarthritis requiring total hip arthroplasty (THA)
Key MechanismsVariability in proximal femoral morphology affects prosthetic femoral version (PFV) and fixation in cementless THA
Target PopulationPatients undergoing cementless total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
Care SettingOrthopaedic surgical setting, pre- and post-operative imaging and planning

Key Highlights

  • Native femoral version (NFV) does not reliably predict prosthetic femoral version (PFV) due to anatomical variability.
  • A sex-specific statistical shape model (SSM) was developed to quantify 3D morphological variability of the proximal femur pre- and post-operatively.
  • Patient-specific femoral neck osteotomy guides enable accurate simulation and execution of planned osteotomy cuts.

Guideline-Based Recommendations

Diagnosis

  • Use preoperative CT imaging to assess proximal femoral anatomy and plan osteotomy.
  • Segment native proximal femur, post-osteotomy femur, and intramedullary canal for detailed morphological analysis.

Management

  • Consider variability in femoral canal shape when selecting cementless femoral stem design.
  • Use patient-specific osteotomy guides to improve accuracy of femoral neck cuts.
  • Aim for prosthetic femoral version (PFV) target of 20° ± 5°, recognizing intraoperative adjustment limitations.

Monitoring & Follow-up

  • Perform post-operative CT scans to evaluate reconstructed femur and stem positioning.
  • Use statistical shape models to correlate anatomical variations with surgical outcomes.

Risks

  • Inaccurate prediction of PFV may lead to suboptimal biomechanics and fixation.
  • Limited intraoperative ability to adjust stem rotation may affect final implant orientation.

Patient & Prescribing Data

62 patients (31 male, 31 female) undergoing cementless THA with Quadra®–H stem for osteoarthritis

Despite targeting a PFV of 20° ± 5°, achieved PFV varies widely due to anatomical differences and limited rotational control during surgery.

Clinical Best Practices

  • Utilize patient-specific femoral neck osteotomy guides to replicate preoperative plans accurately.
  • Incorporate 3D imaging and segmentation to understand individual femoral morphology before stem selection.
  • Recognize the limitations of current cementless stem designs in restoring optimal biomechanics due to anatomical variability.

References

Original Source(s)

Related Content