Relative growth of the limbs and trunk in sifakas: heterochronic, ecological, and functional considerations.

Limb, trunk, and body weight measurements were obtained for growth series of Milne-Edwards's diademed sifaka, Propithecus diadema edwardsi, and the golden-crowned sifaka, Propithecus tattersalli. Similar measures were obtained also for primarily adults of two subspecies of the western sifaka: Propithecus verreauxi coquereli, Coquerel's sifaka, and Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi, Verreaux's sifaka. Ontogenetic series for the larger-bodied P. d. edwardsi and the smaller-bodied P. tattersalli were compared to evaluate whether species-level differences in body proportions result from the differential extension of common patterns of relative growth. In bivariate plots, both subspecies of P. verreauxi were included to examine whether these taxa also lie along a growth trajectory common to all sifakas. Analyses of the data indicate that postcranial proportions for sifakas are ontogenetically scaled, much as demonstrated previously with cranial dimensions for all three species (Ravosa, 1992). As such, P. d. edwardsi apparently develops larger overall size primarily by growing at a faster rate, but not for a longer duration of time, than P. tattersalli and P. verreauxi; this is similar to results based on cranial data. A consideration of Malagasy lemur ecology suggests that regional differences in forage quality and resource availability have strongly influenced the evolutionary development of body-size variation in sifakas. On one hand, the rainforest environment of P. d. edwardsi imposes greater selective pressures for larger body size than the dry-forest environment of P. tattersalli and P. v. coquereli, or the semi-arid climate of P. v. verreauxi. On the other hand, as progressively smaller-bodied adult sifakas are located in the east, west, and northwest, this apparently supports suggestions that adult body size is set by dry-season constraints on food quality and distribution (i.e., smaller taxa are located in more seasonal habitats such as the west and northeast). Moreover, the fact that body-size differentiation occurs primarily via differences in growth rate is also due apparently to differences in resource seasonality (and juvenile mortality risk in turn) between the eastern rainforest and the more temperate northeast and west. Most scaling coefficients for both arm and leg growth range from slight negative allometry to slight positive allometry. Given the low intermembral index for sifakas, which is also an adaptation for propulsive hindlimb-dominated jumping, this suggests that differences in adult limb proportions are largely set prenatally rather than being achieved via higher rates of postnatal hindlimb growth.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that there is a learning curve for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. The purpose of this study was to assess whether implant positioning changed with surgeon experience and whether positioning and component sizing were associated with implant longevity. METHODS: We evaluated the first 361 consecutive hip resurfacings performed by a single surgeon, which had a mean follow-up of 59 months (range, 28 to 87 months). Pre and post-operative radiographs were assessed to determine the inclination of the acetabular component, as well as the sagittal and coronal femoral stem-neck angles. Changes in the precision of component placement were determined by assessing changes in the standard deviation of each measurement using variance ratio and linear regression analysis. Additionally, the cup and stem-shaft angles as well as component sizes were compared between the 31 hips that failed over the follow-up period and the surviving components to assess for any differences that might have been associated with an increased risk for failure. RESULTS: Surgeon experience was correlated with improved precision of the antero-posterior and lateral positioning of the femoral component. However, femoral and acetabular radiographic implant positioning angles were not different between the surviving hips and failures. The failures had smaller mean femoral component diameters as compared to the non-failure group (44 versus 47 millimeters). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there may be differences in implant positioning in early versus late learning curve procedures, but that in the absence of recognized risk factors such as intra-operative notching of the femoral neck and cup inclination in excess of 50 degrees, component positioning does not appear to be associated with failure. Nevertheless, surgeons should exercise caution in operating patients with small femoral necks, especially when they are early in the learning curve.