FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / Anatomical variations of the equine femur and tibia using st...
PloS one2023; 18(6); e0287381; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287381

Anatomical variations of the equine femur and tibia using statistical shape modeling.

Abstract: The objective of this study was to provide an overarching description of the inter-subject variability of the equine femur and tibia morphology using statistical shape modeling. Fifteen femora and fourteen tibiae were used for building the femur and tibia statistical shape models, respectively. Geometric variations in each mode were explained by biometrics measured on ±3 standard deviation instances generated by the shape models. Approximately 95% of shape variations within the population were described by 6 and 3 modes in the femur and tibia shape models, respectively. In the femur shape model, the first mode of variation was scaling, followed by notable variation in the femoral mechanical-anatomical angle and femoral neck angle in mode 2. Orientation of the femoral trochlear tubercle and femoral version angle were described in mode 3 and mode 4, respectively. In the tibia shape model, the main mode of variation was also scaling. In mode 2 and mode 3, the angles of the coronal tibial plateau and the medial and lateral caudal tibial slope were described, showing the lateral caudal tibial slope angle being significantly larger than the medial. The presented femur and tibia shape models with quantified biometrics, such as femoral version angle and posterior tibial slope, could serve as a baseline for future investigations on correlation between the equine stifle morphology and joint disorders due to altered biomechanics, as well as facilitate the development of novel surgical treatment and implant design. By generating instances matching patient-specific femorotibial joint anatomy with radiographs, the shape model could assist virtual surgical planning and provide clinicians with opportunities to practice on 3D printed models.
Copyright: © 2023 He et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-06-30 PubMed ID: 37390069PubMed Central: PMC10313054DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287381Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The study discusses the anatomical variations of horse femurs and tibias using statistical shape modelling, with an aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of differing morphologies. The findings could be used as a foundation for future investigations into joint disorders and can also aid in advancing surgical treatment and implant design.

Overview of the Research

  • The primary focus of this research was to effectively describe the variations in the morphology of the equine femur and tibia using statistical shape modeling.
  • The investigation utilized fifteen femur models and fourteen tibia models, which were used to generate the femur and tibia statistical shape models respectively.
  • The primary objective was to unravel the inherent geometric variations in the morphology of these bones by creating instances in the range of ±3 standard deviations.

Key Findings

  • The study concluded that around 95% of shape variations in the horse population could be encompassed by 6 modes of the femur shape model and 3 modes of the tibia shape model.
  • For the femur shape model:
    • The first and most significant mode of variation was identified as scaling.
    • Subsequent modes described variation in the femoral mechanical-anatomical angle and femoral neck angle.
    • The orientation of the femoral trochlear tubercle and femoral version angle were also identified as significant parameters.
  • For the tibia shape model:
    • Scaling was also the principal mode of variation.
    • Angles of the coronal tibial plateau and the medial and lateral caudal tibial slope were other significant parameters.
    • It was noted that the lateral caudal tibial slope angle was significantly larger than the medial.

Implications of the Study

  • The research provides valuable and quantifiable biometrics including key details such as femoral version angle and posterior tibial slope.
  • The shape models gleaned from this study could potentially serve as a baseline for future studies exploring the correlations between equine stifle morphology and joint disorders resulting from altered biomechanics.
  • The discoveries could also positively impact surgical treatment methods and the design of implants, serving as a blueprint for more novel and efficient practices.
  • The statistical shape model can be used to assist in virtual surgical planning and provide healthcare practitioners opportunities to train with 3D printed models that match specific patient anatomy.

Cite This Article

APA
He H, Banks SA, Biedrzycki AH. (2023). Anatomical variations of the equine femur and tibia using statistical shape modeling. PLoS One, 18(6), e0287381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287381

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 18
Issue: 6
Pages: e0287381
PII: e0287381

Researcher Affiliations

He, Hongjia
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Banks, Scott A
  • Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United Stated of America.
Biedrzycki, Adam H
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Tibia / diagnostic imaging
  • Lower Extremity
  • Femur / diagnostic imaging
  • Femur Neck
  • Biomechanical Phenomena

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 41 references
  1. Fowlie JG, Richardson DW, Ortved KF. Chapter 101—Stifle. In: Auer JA, Stick JA, Kümmerle JM, Prange T, editors. Equine Surgery (Fifth Edition). W.B. Saunders; 2019.
  2. De Lasalle J, Alexander K, Olive J, Laverty S. COMPARISONS AMONG RADIOGRAPHY, ULTRASONOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY FOR EX VIVO CHARACTERIZATION OF STIFLE OSTEOARTHRITIS IN THE HORSE.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2016 Sep;57(5):489-501.
    doi: 10.1111/vru.12370pubmed: 27237699google scholar: lookup
  3. Auer JA, Fackelman GE, Gingerich DA, Fetter AW. Effect of hyaluronic acid in naturally occurring and experimentally induced osteoarthritis.. Am J Vet Res 1980 Apr;41(4):568-74.
    pubmed: 7406275
  4. Bolam CJ, Hurtig MB, Cruz A, McEwen BJ. Characterization of experimentally induced post-traumatic osteoarthritis in the medial femorotibial joint of horses.. Am J Vet Res 2006 Mar;67(3):433-47.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.67.3.433pubmed: 16506905google scholar: lookup
  5. Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, Mawatari T, Tokunaga M, Nabeyama R, Iwamoto Y. Anatomical analysis of the femoral condyle in normal and osteoarthritic knees.. J Orthop Res 2004 Jan;22(1):104-9.
    doi: 10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00134-7pubmed: 14656667google scholar: lookup
  6. Beynnon B, Yu J, Huston D, Fleming B, Johnson R, Haugh L, Pope MH. A sagittal plane model of the knee and cruciate ligaments with application of a sensitivity analysis.. J Biomech Eng 1996 May;118(2):227-39.
    doi: 10.1115/1.2795965pubmed: 8738789google scholar: lookup
  7. Hashemi J, Chandrashekar N, Gill B, Beynnon BD, Slauterbeck JR, Schutt RC Jr, Mansouri H, Dabezies E. The geometry of the tibial plateau and its influence on the biomechanics of the tibiofemoral joint.. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008 Dec;90(12):2724-34.
    doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01358pmc: PMC2663332pubmed: 19047719google scholar: lookup
  8. Masouros SD, Bull AMJ, Amis AA. (i) Biomechanics of the knee joint. Orthopaedics and Trauma 2010 Apr 1;24(2):84–91.
  9. Rusli WMR, Kedgley AE. Statistical shape modelling of the first carpometacarpal joint reveals high variation in morphology.. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2020 Aug;19(4):1203-1210.
    doi: 10.1007/s10237-019-01257-8pmc: PMC7423863pubmed: 31754950google scholar: lookup
  10. Fitzpatrick CK, Baldwin MA, Laz PJ, FitzPatrick DP, Lerner AL, Rullkoetter PJ. Development of a statistical shape model of the patellofemoral joint for investigating relationships between shape and function.. J Biomech 2011 Sep 2;44(13):2446-52.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.06.025pubmed: 21803359google scholar: lookup
  11. Liley H, Zhang J, Firth EC, Fernandez JW, Besier TF. Statistical modeling of the equine third metacarpal bone incorporating morphology and bone mineral density.. PLoS One 2018;13(6):e0194406.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194406pmc: PMC5991359pubmed: 29874224google scholar: lookup
  12. Van Houtte J, Vandenberghe F, Zheng G, Huysmans T, Sijbers J. EquiSim: An Open-Source Articulatable Statistical Model of the Equine Distal Limb.. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:623318.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.623318pmc: PMC7982960pubmed: 33763462google scholar: lookup
  13. Cootes TF, Cooper DH, Taylor CJ, Graham J. Trainable method of parametric shape description. Image and Vision Computing 1992 Jun 1;10(5):289–94.
  14. Lorenz C, Krahnstöver N. Generation of Point-Based 3D Statistical Shape Models for Anatomical Objects. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 2000 Feb 1;77(2):175–91.
  15. Gregory JS, Waarsing JH, Day J, Pols HA, Reijman M, Weinans H, Aspden RM. Early identification of radiographic osteoarthritis of the hip using an active shape model to quantify changes in bone morphometric features: can hip shape tell us anything about the progression of osteoarthritis?. Arthritis Rheum 2007 Nov;56(11):3634-43.
    doi: 10.1002/art.22982pubmed: 17968890google scholar: lookup
  16. Haverkamp DJ, Schiphof D, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Weinans H, Waarsing JH. Variation in joint shape of osteoarthritic knees.. Arthritis Rheum 2011 Nov;63(11):3401-7.
    doi: 10.1002/art.30575pubmed: 21811994google scholar: lookup
  17. Bredbenner TL, Eliason TD, Francis WL, McFarland JM, Merkle AC, Nicolella DP. Development and validation of a statistical shape modeling-based finite element model of the cervical spine under low-level multiple direction loading conditions.. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2014;2:58.
    doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2014.00058pmc: PMC4245926pubmed: 25506051google scholar: lookup
  18. Doherty M, Courtney P, Doherty S, Jenkins W, Maciewicz RA, Muir K, Zhang W. Nonspherical femoral head shape (pistol grip deformity), neck shaft angle, and risk of hip osteoarthritis: a case-control study.. Arthritis Rheum 2008 Oct;58(10):3172-82.
    doi: 10.1002/art.23939pubmed: 18821698google scholar: lookup
  19. Moreland JR, Bassett LW, Hanker GJ. Radiographic analysis of the axial alignment of the lower extremity.. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987 Jun;69(5):745-9.
    pubmed: 3597474
  20. Luo CF. Reference axes for reconstruction of the knee.. Knee 2004 Aug;11(4):251-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2004.03.003pubmed: 15261208google scholar: lookup
  21. Yoshioka Y, Cooke TD. Femoral anteversion: assessment based on function axes.. J Orthop Res 1987;5(1):86-91.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100050111pubmed: 3819914google scholar: lookup
  22. Yoshioka Y, Siu DW, Scudamore RA, Cooke TD. Tibial anatomy and functional axes.. J Orthop Res 1989;7(1):132-7.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100070118pubmed: 2908904google scholar: lookup
  23. Slocum B, Devine T. Cranial tibial wedge osteotomy: a technique for eliminating cranial tibial thrust in cranial cruciate ligament repair.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1984 Mar 1;184(5):564-9.
    pubmed: 6706801
  24. D'Lima DD, Chen PC, Colwell CW Jr. Polyethylene contact stresses, articular congruity, and knee alignment.. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001 Nov;(392):232-8.
    doi: 10.1097/00003086-200111000-00029pubmed: 11716388google scholar: lookup
  25. Fang DM, Ritter MA, Davis KE. Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: just how important is it?. J Arthroplasty 2009 Sep;24(6 Suppl):39-43.
    doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.034pubmed: 19553073google scholar: lookup
  26. Cherian JJ, Kapadia BH, Banerjee S, Jauregui JJ, Issa K, Mont MA. Mechanical, Anatomical, and Kinematic Axis in TKA: Concepts and Practical Applications.. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2014 Jun;7(2):89-95.
    doi: 10.1007/s12178-014-9218-ypmc: PMC4092202pubmed: 24671469google scholar: lookup
  27. Wang Y, Zeng Y, Dai K, Zhu Z, Xie L. Normal lower-extremity alignment parameters in healthy Southern Chinese adults as a guide in total knee arthroplasty.. J Arthroplasty 2010 Jun;25(4):563-70.
    doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.03.021pubmed: 19447000google scholar: lookup
  28. Scorcelletti M, Reeves ND, Rittweger J, Ireland A. Femoral anteversion: significance and measurement.. J Anat 2020 Nov;237(5):811-826.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.13249pmc: PMC7542196pubmed: 32579722google scholar: lookup
  29. Okazaki K, Miura H, Matsuda S, Takeuchi N, Mawatari T, Hashizume M, Iwamoto Y. Asymmetry of mediolateral laxity of the normal knee.. J Orthop Sci 2006 May;11(3):264-6.
    doi: 10.1007/s00776-006-1009-xpubmed: 16721527google scholar: lookup
  30. Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, Urabe K, Ikenoue T, Okazaki K, Iwamoto Y. Posterior tibial slope in the normal and varus knee.. Am J Knee Surg 1999 Summer;12(3):165-8.
    pubmed: 10496466
  31. Utzschneider S, Goettinger M, Weber P, Horng A, Glaser C, Jansson V, Müller PE. Development and validation of a new method for the radiologic measurement of the tibial slope.. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011 Oct;19(10):1643-8.
    doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1414-3pubmed: 21298254google scholar: lookup
  32. Weinberg DS, Williamson DF, Gebhart JJ, Knapik DM, Voos JE. Differences in Medial and Lateral Posterior Tibial Slope: An Osteological Review of 1090 Tibiae Comparing Age, Sex, and Race.. Am J Sports Med 2017 Jan;45(1):106-113.
    doi: 10.1177/0363546516662449pubmed: 27587744google scholar: lookup
  33. Haddad B, Konan S, Mannan K, Scott G. Evaluation of the posterior tibial slope on MR images in different population groups using the tibial proximal anatomical axis.. Acta Orthop Belg 2012 Dec;78(6):757-63.
    pubmed: 23409572
  34. Todd MS, Lalliss S, Garcia E, DeBerardino TM, Cameron KL. The relationship between posterior tibial slope and anterior cruciate ligament injuries.. Am J Sports Med 2010 Jan;38(1):63-7.
    doi: 10.1177/0363546509343198pubmed: 19737987google scholar: lookup
  35. Bredbenner TL, Eliason TD, Potter RS, Mason RL, Havill LM, Nicolella DP. Statistical shape modeling describes variation in tibia and femur surface geometry between Control and Incidence groups from the osteoarthritis initiative database.. J Biomech 2010 Jun 18;43(9):1780-6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.02.015pmc: PMC2997679pubmed: 20227696google scholar: lookup
  36. Guastella DB, Fox DB, Cook JL. Tibial plateau angle in four common canine breeds with cranial cruciate ligament rupture, and its relationship to meniscal tears.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008;21(2):125-8.
    doi: 10.3415/vcot-07-02-0015pubmed: 18545714google scholar: lookup
  37. Dismukes DI, Tomlinson JL, Fox DB, Cook JL, Witsberger TH. Radiographic measurement of canine tibial angles in the sagittal plane.. Vet Surg 2008 Apr;37(3):300-5.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2008.00381.xpubmed: 18394079google scholar: lookup
  38. Slocum B, Devine T. Cranial tibial thrust: a primary force in the canine stifle.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1983 Aug 15;183(4):456-9.
    pubmed: 6618973
  39. Schumann S, Tannast M, Nolte LP, Zheng G. Validation of statistical shape model based reconstruction of the proximal femur--A morphology study.. Med Eng Phys 2010 Jul;32(6):638-44.
    doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.03.010pubmed: 20435501google scholar: lookup
  40. Sarkalkan N, Weinans H, Zadpoor AA. Statistical shape and appearance models of bones.. Bone 2014 Mar;60:129-40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2013.12.006pubmed: 24334169google scholar: lookup
  41. Kuhn JL, Goulet RW, Pappas M, Goldstein SA. Morphometric and anisotropic symmetries of the canine distal femur.. J Orthop Res 1990 Sep;8(5):776-80.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100080520pubmed: 2388117google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.