A Comparative Analysis of Different Imaging Techniques for Measuring the Neck-Shaft Angle in the Proximal Femur.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22153/kej.2026.04.001Keywords:
Bone morphology; Neck–shaft angle, Femoral geometry, 3D imaging, CT scan, Dicom fileAbstract
Clinical settings have an accurate neck shaft angle (NSA), as it directly affects the diagnosis and treatment of hip-related conditions such as hip dysplasia and osteoarthritis. Variations in the NSA measurement can lead to a difference in the patient's condition during imaging and emphasize the importance of standardized protocols to ensure reliability. Reducing measurement anomalies enables health professionals to improve surgical planning and patient results significantly. A functioning and its impact on clinical applications to evaluate different imaging techniques and software platforms based on correlation coefficients in the class can be used to determine stability and reliability. The primary goal of this research was to identify a valid and reliable necklace measurement method (NSA) using different software and methods. The final results indicate that the 3D method for measuring neck shaft Angle (NSA), primarily using AI-driven automatic measurement Radiographic analysis, is the most effective way to determine the neck shaft angle because it has low radiation doses, low costs, high accuracy, and a simple interface. Technology Using available radiographic images to provide much less radiation risk than calculations Tomography (CT), but often with a high accuracy rate of more than 98%. In addition, it streamlines the Measurement process by reducing human error and variability found in manual methods and campaigns' Clinical availability. Therefore, this computer improves the help of technology in surgical planning and improves the patient's results of total hip arthroplasty with accurate neck shaft measurements (NSA). However, using two-dimensional technology, the EOS 2-D/3-D image system is best suited to Measure the neck shaft angle (NSA), exposure with low radiation, high accuracy, and a user-friendly Interface. This system produces much less radiation than traditional imaging techniques such as CT and the production of detailed 2D and 3D images required for accurate surgical schemes. Its capacity to provide accurate Measurement under increasing clinical efficiency makes it an excellent option for achieving the best results in total hip arthroplasty.
Downloads
References
[1] M. Wittauer, J. Henry, G. Sánchez-Rosenberg, A. P. Lambers, C. W. Jones, and P. J. Yates, “Evaluation of reduction quality and implant positioning in intertrochanteric fracture fixation: A review of key radiographic parameters,” World Journal of Orthopedics, vol. 16, no. 8, p. 106982, 2025.
[2] A. Di Martino et al., “Enhancing recovery: surgical techniques and rehabilitation strategies after direct anterior hip arthroplasty,” J Orthop Traumatol, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 45, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s10195-024-00786-y.
[3] D. Tigani, L. Banci, R. Valtorta, and L. Amendola, “Hip stability parameters with dual mobility, modular dual mobility and fixed bearing in total hip arthroplasty: an analytical evaluation,” BMC Musculoskelet Disord, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 373, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05280-2.
[4] S. P. Dasari et al., “Improved outcomes for proximal humerus fracture open reduction internal fixation augmented with a fibular allograft in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 884–894, 2022.
[5] A. Y. Bavil et al., “Simulated effects of surgical corrections on bone-implant micromotion and implant stresses in paediatric proximal femoral osteotomy,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 185, p. 109544, 2025.
[6] G. M. Schwarz et al., “Can an artificial intelligence powered software reliably assess pelvic radiographs?,” International Orthopaedics (SICOT), vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 945–953, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00264-023-05722-z.
[7] A. Hosthota, M. Thandapani, and N. D. M. Ismail, “Evaluation of Neck-shaft Angle and Anteversion in Dry Femora of Adult Indian Population: A Descriptive Analysis,” Journal of Orthopedics and Joint Surgery, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 103–108, 2024.
[8] M. Farshad, Ed., Orthopedics Must Knows. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2025. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-70893-4.
[9] M. J. Rogers, T. L. King, J. Kim, T. F. Adeyemi, T. F. Higgins, and T. G. Maak, “Femoral neck shaft angle and management of proximal femur fractures: is the contralateral femur a reliable template?,” Journal of orthopaedic trauma, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 529–534, 2021.
[10] Á. T. Schlégl, V. Nyakas, D. Kovács, P. Maróti, G. Józsa, and P. Than, “Neck-shaft angle measurement in children: accuracy of the conventional radiography-based (2D) methods compared to 3D reconstructions,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 16494, 2022.
[11] B. Haddad et al., “Femoral neck shaft angle measurement on plain radiography: is standing or supine radiograph a reliable template for the contralateral femur?,” BMC Musculoskelet Disord, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 1092, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-06071-5.
[12] Z. Li, J. Yang, X. Li, K. Wang, J. Han, and P. Yang, “Comparing two different automatic methods to measure femoral neck-shaft angle based on PointNet++ network,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 12437, 2022.
[13] F. Boel et al., “Automated radiographic hip morphology measurements: an open-access method,” Osteoarthritis imaging, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 100181, 2024.
[14] A. Kumar and S. Pandian, “Evaluation of accuracy and reliability of artificial intelligence-based fully automated and semi-automated cephalometric analysis software in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis,” South East. Eur. J. Public Health, vol. 25, pp. 137–144, 2024.
[15] G. S. Duran, Ş. Gökmen, K. G. Topsakal, and S. Görgülü, “Evaluation of the accuracy of fully automatic cephalometric analysis software with artificial intelligence algorithm,” Orthod Craniofacial Res, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 481–490, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1111/ocr.12633.
[16] J. Lv et al., “The notable role of telomere length maintenance in complex diseases,” Biomedicines, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 2611, 2024.
[17] M. Kostewicz, G. Szczęsny, W. Tomaszewski, and P. Małdyk, “Narrative review of the mechanism of hip prosthesis dislocation and methods to reduce the risk of dislocation,” Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, vol. 28, pp. e935665-1, 2022.
[18] P. K. Sculco et al., “The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium,” HSS Journal®: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 8–41, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1177/15563316211034850.
[19] P. Sun et al., “Application of virtual and augmented reality technology in hip surgery: systematic review,” Journal of medical Internet research, vol. 25, p. e37599, 2023.
[20] E. Bulat, D. A. Maranho, L. A. Kalish, M. B. Millis, Y.-J. Kim, and E. N. Novais, “Acetabular global insufficiency in patients with Down syndrome and hip-related symptoms: a matched-cohort study,” JBJS, vol. 99, no. 20, pp. 1760–1768, 2017.
[21] L.-A. Tu, D. S. Weinberg, and R. W. Liu, “The association between femoral neck shaft angle and degenerative disease of the hip in a cadaveric model,” HIP International, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 634–640, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1177/11207000211013029.
[22] F. Boel et al., “Reliability and agreement of manual and automated morphological radiographic hip measurements,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 100510, 2024.
[23] K. Ding et al., “Age-related Changes with the Trabecular Bone of Ward’s Triangle and Neck-shaft Angle in the Proximal Femur: A Radiographic Study,” Orthop Surg, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 3279–3287, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1111/os.13923.
[24] J. Zhao et al., “Predicting the optimal entry point for femoral antegrade nailing using a new measurement approach,” Int J CARS, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1557–1565, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11548-015-1182-5.
[25] C. K. Boese et al., “The Modified Femoral Neck-Shaft Angle: Age- and Sex-Dependent Reference Values and Reliability Analysis,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2016, pp. 1–7, 2016, doi: 10.1155/2016/8645027.
[26] I. Altubasi, H. Hamzeh, and M. Madi, “Measurement of neck-shaft angle using CT scout view in healthy jordanian adults-a reliability and agreement study,” Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, vol. 32, no. 16, pp. 9–17, 2020.
[27] B. N. Clinger, S. Plaster, R. S. Fine, J. R. Marshall, and D. L. Richter, “Differences in CT Scan Measurements of Femoral Neck Shaft Angle and Acetabular Version Among Sex, Age, and Ethnicity from a Large Cadaveric Database,” Western Journal of Orthopaedics, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 11, 2023.
[28] M. Hermanson, G. Hägglund, J. Riad, and E. Rodby-Bousquet, “Inter- and intra-rater reliability of the head-shaft angle in children with cerebral palsy,” Journal of Children’s Orthopaedics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 256–262, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1302/1863-2548.11.170008.
[29] M. I. M. Ahmad, M. T. Bushra, A. T. Galal, and S. M. Ouies, “Computed tomography reference values estimation for femoral neck shaft angle in Egyptian healthy adults of both sexes,” Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med, vol. 54, no. 1, p. 96, May 2023, doi: 10.1186/s43055-023-01040-x.
[30] K. C. G. Ng, M. Lamontagne, M. R. Labrosse, and P. E. Beaulé, “Comparison of anatomical parameters of cam femoroacetabular impingement to evaluate hip joint models segmented from CT data,” Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 293–302, May 2018, doi: 10.1080/21681163.2016.1216805.
[31] W. D. Foxcroft, J. du Toit, N. Ferreira, M. Thiart, A. Saini, and M. Burger, “Radiographic Assessment of Lower Limb Alignment in South African Children,” Journal of Limb Lengthening & Reconstruction, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 35–40, 2023.
[32] M. Samim et al., “3D-MRI versus 3D-CT in the evaluation of osseous anatomy in femoroacetabular impingement using Dixon 3D FLASH sequence,” Skeletal Radiol, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 429–436, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00256-018-3049-7.
[33] N. Park, J. Lee, K. H. Sung, M. S. Park, and S. Koo, “Design and Validation of Automated Femoral Bone Morphology Measurements in Cerebral Palsy,” J Digit Imaging, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 262–269, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s10278-013-9643-2.
[34] K. Szuper, Á. T. Schlégl, E. Leidecker, C. Vermes, S. Somoskeöy, and P. Than, “Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of the proximal femur and the pelvis in children and adolescents using an upright biplanar slot-scanning X-ray system,” Pediatr Radiol, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 411–421, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s00247-014-3146-2.
[35] L. Yi et al., “Anatomical study based on 3D-CT image reconstruction of the hip rotation center and femoral offset in a Chinese population: preoperative implications in total hip arthroplasty,” Surg Radiol Anat, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 117–124, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00276-018-2143-9.
[36] M. Burkus, Á. T. Schlégl, K. József, I. O’Sullivan, I. Márkus, and M. Tunyogi-Csapó, “Analysis of Proximal Femoral Parameters in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis,” Advances in Orthopedics, vol. 2019, pp. 1–7, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1155/2019/3948595.
[37] B. F. Ricciardi, “CORR Insights®: Is Cam Morphology Found in Ancient and Medieval Populations in Addition to Modern Populations?” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, vol. 479, no. 8, pp. 1839–1841, 2021.
[38] R. J. Kuiper, P. R. Seevinck, M. A. Viergever, H. Weinans, and R. J. Sakkers, “Automatic assessment of lower-limb alignment from computed tomography,” JBJS, vol. 105, no. 9, pp. 700–712, 2023.
[39] F. Schmaranzer et al., “Coxa valga and antetorta increases differences among different femoral version measurements: potential implications for derotational femoral osteotomy planning,” Bone & Joint Open, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 759–766, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0102.R1.
[40] L. Quinn et al., “Interobserver variability studies in diagnostic imaging: a methodological systematic review,” The British Journal of Radiology, vol. 96, no. 1148, p. 20220972, 2023.
[41] A. Mierke et al., “Intra- and inter-observer reliability of the novel vertebral bone quality score,” Eur Spine J, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 843–850, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-07096-5.
[42] S. Picken, H. Summers, and O. Al-Dadah, “Inter- and intra-observer reliability of patellar height measurements in patients with and without patellar instability on plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging,” Skeletal Radiol, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1201–1214, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s00256-021-03937-y.
[43] G. Xu et al., “Test-retest reliability of fNIRS in resting-state cortical activity and brain network assessment in stroke patients,” Biomedical Optics Express, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 4217–4236, 2023.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Al-Khwarizmi Engineering Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright: Open Access authors retain the copyrights of their papers, and all open access articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations. While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
How to Cite
