The hip joint as an egg shape: a comprehensive study of femoral and acetabular morphologies

References

• Afoke NY, Byers PD, Hutton WC. 1980. The incongruous hip joint. A casting study. Bone Joint J. 62(4):511–514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn SJ. 2004. Least squares orthogonal distance fitting of curves and surfaces in space, series: lecture notes in computer science. Vol. 3151. USA: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Allen BC, Peters CL, Brown NA, Anderson AE. 2010. Acetabular cartilage thickness: accuracy of three-dimensional reconstructions from multidetector CT arthrograms in a cadaver study. Radiology. 255:544–552. [PubMed: 20413764].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson AE, Ellis BJ, Maas SA, Weiss JA. 2010. Effects of idealized joint geometry on finite element predictions of cartilage contact stresses in the hip. J Biomech. 43(7):1351–1357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson AE, Ellis BJ, Peters CL, Weiss JA. 2008. Cartilage thickness: factors influencing multidetector CT measurements in a phantom study. Radiology. 246:133–141. [PubMed: 18096534].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr AH. 1981. Superquadrics and angle-preserving transformations. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 1(1):11–23.
   Google Scholar
• Bazaraa MS, Sherali HD, Shetty CM. 1993. Nonlinear programming: theory and algorithms. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Berryman F, Pynsent P, McBryde C. 2014. A semi-automated method for measuring femoral shape to derive version and its comparison with existing methods. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng. 30:1314–1325. doi:10.1002/cnm.2659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter TC. 1968. The hen’s egg: a mathematical model with three parameters. Br Poult Sci. 9(2):165–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerveri P, Manzotti A, Baroni G. 2014. Patient-specific acetabular shape modelling: comparison among sphere, ellipsoid and conchoid parameterisations. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 17(5):560–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerveri P, Marchente M, Chemello C, Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Baroni G. 2011. Advanced computational framework for the automatic analysis of the acetabular morphology from the pelvic bone surface for hip arthroplasty applications. Ann Biomed Eng. 39(11):2791–2806.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R, Kim Y-J, Beaule PE, Morgan P, Steger-May K, Schoenecker PL, Millis M. 2008. Radiographic evaluation of the hip has limited reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 467:666–675. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0626-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper RJ, Mengoni M, Groves D, Williams S, Bankes MJK, Robinson P, Jones AC. 2017. Three-dimensional assessment of impingement risk in geometrically parameterised hips compared with clinical measures. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng. 33:e2867. doi:10.1002/cnm.2867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghasemi A, Saleh Z. 2012. Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 10(2):486–489.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gu D, Chen Y, Dai K, Zhang S, Yuan J. 2008. The shape of the acetabular cartilage surface: A geometric morphometric study using three-dimensional scanning. Med Eng Phys. 30(8):1024–1031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu DY, Dai KR, Hu F, Chen YZ. 2010. The shape of the acetabular cartilage surface and its role in hip joint contact stress. 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology; Buenos Aires, Argentina. IEEE. p. 3934–3937.
   Google Scholar
• Gu DY, Hu F, Wei JH, Dai KR, Chen YZ. 2011. Contributions of non-spherical hip joint cartilage surface to hip joint contact stress. 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; Boston, MA. IEEE. p. 8166–8169.
   Google Scholar
• Haldane CE, Ekhtiari S, de SA D, Simunovic N, Ayeni OR. 2017. Preoperative physical examination and imaging of femoroacetabular impingement prior to hip arthroscopy—a systematic review. J Hip Preserv Surg. 1–13. doi:10.1093/jhps/hnx020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris MD, Anderson AE, Henak CR, Ellis BJ, Peters CL, Weiss JA. 2012. Finite element prediction of cartilage contact stresses in normal human hips. J Orthop Res. 30(7):1133–1139. doi:10.1002/jor.22040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamali AA, Mak W, Wang P, Tai L, Meehan JP, Lamba R. 2013. What is normal femoral head/neck anatomy? An analysis of radial CT reconstructions in adolescents. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 471:3581–3587. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3166-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang HB, Liu HT, Han SY, Fen LIU. 2010. Biomechanics characteristics of new type artificial hip joint. Adv Nat Sci. 3(2):258–262.
   Google Scholar
• Kang M. 2004. Hip joint center location by fitting conchoid shape to the acetabular rim region of MR images. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2004. IEMBS’04. 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE; Vol. 2; San Francisco, CA. IEEE. p. 4477–4480.
   Google Scholar
• Kang MJ, Sadri H, Stern R, Magnenat-Thalmann N, Hoffmeyer P, Ji HS. 2010. Determining the location of hip joint centre: application of a conchoid’s shape to the acetabular cartilage surface of magnetic resonance images. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 14(1):65–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan A, Rayner GD. 2003. Robustness to non-normality of common tests for the many-sample location problem. J Appl Math Decis Sci. 7(4):187–206. doi:10.1155/S1173912603000178.
   Google Scholar
• Liu B, Hua S, Zhang H, Liu Z, Zhao X, Zhang B, Yue Z. 2014. A personalized ellipsoid modeling method and matching error analysis for the artificial femoral head design. Comput-Aided Des. 56:88–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu B, Zhang H, Hua S, Jiang Q, Huang R, Liu W, Yue Z, Zhang B, Yue Z. 2015. An automatic segmentation system of acetabulum in sequential CT images for the personalized artificial femoral head design. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 127:318–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes DS, Pires SM, Mascarenhas VV, Silva MT, Jorge JA. 2018 September. On a “Columbus’ egg”: modeling the shape of asymptomatic, dysplastic and impinged hip joints. Med Eng Phys. 59:50–55. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2018.07.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes DS, Neptune RR, Gonçalves AA, Ambrósio JA, Silva MT. 2015. Shape analysis of the femoral head: a comparative study between spherical,(super) ellipsoidal, and (super) ovoidal shapes. J Biomech Eng. 137(11):114504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorensen WE, Cline HE. 1987. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. ACM SIGGRAPH Comp Graph. 21:163–169.
   Google Scholar
• MacConaill MA. 1966. The geometry and algebra of articular kinematics. Biomed Eng. 1:205–212.
   Google Scholar
• MacConaill MA. 1973. A structuro-functional classification of synovial articular units. Ir J Med Sci. 142(1):19–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marusteri M, Bacarea V. 2010. Comparing groups for statistical differences: how to choose the right statistical test? Biochemia Med. 20(1):15–32. [Accessed 2019 Mar 4]. https://hrcak.srce.hr/47847.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menschik F. 1997. The hip joint as a conchoid shape. J Biomech. 30(9):971–973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paganelli CV, Olszowka A, Ar A. 1974. The avian egg: surface area, volume, and density. Condor. 76(3):319–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouvière H, Delmas A, Götzens García V, Testut JL, Jacob R, Velayos JLS, Testut OL. 2005. Anatomía humana: descriptiva, topográfica y funcional (No. 611). Barcelona (Spain): Masson.
   Google Scholar
• Standring S, Ed. 2015. Gray’s anatomy: the anatomical basis of clinical practice. London (UK): Elsevier Health Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Stoddard MC, Yong EH, Akkaynak D, Catherine Sheard JA, Mahadevan TL. 2017 Jun 23. Avian egg shape: form, function, and evolution, science. p. 1249–1254.
   Google Scholar
• Subburaj K, Ravi B, Agarwal M. 2010 June. Computer-aided methods for assessing lower limb deformities in orthopaedic surgery planning. Comput Med Imaging Graphics. 34(4):277–288. doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2009.11.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todd PH, Smart IH. 1984. The shape of birds’ eggs. J Theor Biol. 106(2):239–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vesalius A. 1998. De humani corporis fabrica (No. 4). Novato (CA): Norman Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Williams GM, Chan EF, Temple-Wong MM, Bae WC, Masuda K, Bugbee WD, Sah RL. 2010. Shape, loading, and motion in the bioengineering design, fabrication, and testing of personalized synovial joints. J Biomech. 43(1):156–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu HH, Wang D, Ma AB, Gu DY. 2016. Hip joint geometry effects on cartilage contact stresses during a gait cycle. IEEE 38th Annual International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC); Orlando, FL. p. 6038–6041.
   Google Scholar
• Xi J, Hu X, Jin Y. 2003. Shape analysis and parameterized modeling of hip joint. J Comput Inf Sci Eng. 3(3):260–265.
   Google Scholar
• Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC, Gerig G. 2006. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage. 31(3):1116–1128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar