Femur morfometrisi ve proksimal ile distal parçalar arasındaki korelasyon

Amaç: Femurun proksimal ve distal kısımlarının morfometrik özelliklerinin uyumu biyomekanik fonksiyon açısından çok önemlidir. Çalışmanın amacı, femurun proksimal ve diatal kısımları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek ve uyum içinde morfometrik özelliklere sahip implant tasarımı için regresyon formülleri üretmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Anatomi Anabilim Dalı kemik koleksiyonunda bulunan 33 kuru femur üzerinde gerçekleştirildi. Femur boyu ve segmentler ile ilgili dört, proksimal femur ile ilgili onaltı ve distal femur ile ilgili onaltı parametre ölçüldü. İstatistiksel olarak, tanımlayıcı istatistik, korelasyon ve lineer regresyon analizleri yapıldı. Bulgular: Çalışmanın sonucunda, toplam femur uznluğu 400.27 ± 39.15 mm, collum femoris çapı 32.82 ± 3.37 mm, inklinasyon açısı 134.11 ± 6.25, deklinasyon açısı 17.28 ± 7.53, transkondiler eksen uzunluğu 78.37 ± 5.49 mm, condylus medialis arka genişliği 27.83 ± 2.37 mm, condylus lateralis arka genişliği 26.77 ± 1.54 mm, fossa intercondylaris genişliği 18.61 ± 2.67 mm, fossa intercondylaris derinliği 23.23 ± 5.22 mm bulundu. Sonuç: Femur’un bölümlerinin biyomekanik fonksiyon için uyumlu olması ve bu uyumluluğun implant tasarlanırken dikkate alınması gerektiği konusunda elde ettiğimiz verilerin ortopedistlere ve implant üreticilerine, ayrıca kimliklendirmede adli bilimcilere ve antropologlara fayda sağlayacağı kanaatindeyiz.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Distal femur, Femur, Kimliklendirme, Proksimal femur

Femur morphometry and correlation between proximal and distal parts

Purpose: The harmony of the morphometric features of the proximal and distal parts of the femur is very important in terms of biomechanical function. The aim of the study is to examine the correlation between the proximal and distal parts of the femur and to produce regression formulas for implant design with morphometric properties in harmony. Materials and Methods: The study was carried out on 33 dry femurs in the bone collection of Harran University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anatomy. Four parameters related to femur length and segments, sixteen parameters related to proximal femur and sixteen parameters related to distal femur were measured. Statistically, descriptive statistics, correlation and linear regression analyzes were made. Results: Entire femur length was 400.27 ± 39.15 mm, diameter of femur neck was 32.82 ± 3.37 mm, inclination angle was 134.11 ± 6.25, declination angle was 17.28 ± 7.53, transcondylar axis length was 78.37 ± 5.49 mm, medial posterior condyle width was 27.83 ± 2.37 mm, lateral posterior condyle width was 26.77 ± 1.54 mm, intercondylar notch width was 18.61 ± 2.67 mm, and intercondylar notch depth was 23.23 ± 5.22 mm found. Conclusion: We believe that the data we have obtained will benefit orthopedists and implant manufacturers on the issue of that the parts of the femur should be in harmony for biomechanical function and this compatibility should be taken into account when designing the implant, and also forensic scientists and anthropologists in identification.

Keywords:

Distal femur, Femur, Identification, Proximal femur,

PDF

___

1. Kumar Adhikari R, Yadav B, Kumar Yadav S, Singh AC. Comparative study of angle of inclination and neck length of dry femur. J Nobel Med Coll. 2017;6:44-7.
2. Eboh DEO, Igbinedion EN. Morphometry of the distal femur in a south-south nigerian population. Mal J Med Health Sci. 2020;16:197-201.
3. Shivashankarappa A, Prasad NC, Pavan PH. A study on femur neck shaft angle and its clinical importance. Int J Orthop Sci. 2017;3:755-7.
4. Cho HJ, Kwak DS, Kim IB. Morphometric evaluation of korean femurs by geometric computation: comparisons of the sex and the population. BioMed Res Int. 2015;2015:730538.
5. Wright SJ, Boymans TAEJ, Grimm B, Miles AW, Kessler O. Strong correlation between the morphology of the proximal femur and the geometry of the distal femoral trochlea. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22:2900–10.
6. Niemczewska-Wójcik M, Wójcik A. The machining process and multi-sensor measurements of the friction components of total hip joint prosthesis. Measurement. 2018;116:56-67.
7. Veilleux NJ, Kalore NV, Wegelin JA, Vossen JA, Jiranek WA, Wayne JS. Automated femoral version estimation without the distal femur. J Orthop Res. 2018;36:3161–8.
8. Biswas A, Bhattacharya S. A morphometric and radiological study of the distal end of femur in West Bengal population. J Anat Embryol. 2017;122:39-48.
9. Irdesel J, Ari I. The proximal femoral morphometry of Turkish women on radiographs. Eur J Anat. 2006;10:21-6.
10. Kang KT, Son H, Kwon OR, Baek C, Heo DB, Park KM, Kim HJ, Koh YG. Morphometry of femoral rotation for total knee prosthesis according to gender in a Korean population using three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. Knee. 2016;23:975-80.
11. Özandaç S, Göker P, Yücel AH, Bozkır MG. An osteometric study of proximal and distal femur morphology. Cukurova Medical Journal. 2015;40:466- 73.
12. Kılıç S. Doğrusal regresyon analizi. Journal of Mood Disorders 2013;3:90-2.
13. Phombut C, Rooppakhun S, Sindhupakorn B. Morphometric analysis and three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction of thai distal femur. Appl Sci. 2021;11:1052.
14. Taner Z, Awadh MK. An analysis of Anatolian human femur anthropometry. Turk J Med Sci. 2002;32:231-5.
15. Mohanty NJ, Koley S. A Study on lower extremity malalignment and its correlation to q-angle in state level athletes of Odisha. International Journal of Health Sciences and Research. 2018;8:31-6.
16. Magetsari R, Suyitno, Dharmastiti R, Salim UA, Hidayat L, Yudiman T et al. three dimensional morphometry of distal femur to design knee prosthesis for Indonesian population. Int J Morphol. 2015;33:1255-60.
17. Isaac B, Vettivel S, Prasad R, Jeyaseelan L, Chandi G. Prediction of the femoral neck-shaft angle from the length of the femoral neck. Clin Anat. 1997;10:318-23.
18. Tuncel Çini N, Arı İ. Estimation of total bone length of the late Byzantine humerus. Archaeol Anthropol Sci. 2021;13:91.
19. Açıkgöz AK, Erkman AC, Binokay F, Göker P, Bozkir MG. Stature estimation from radiographic measurements in adult Anatolian population. Int J Morphol. 2021;39:809-15.
20. Vinay G, Naveen Kumar B, Kalpana T. Morphometric study of proximal end of femur in Telangana population. Int J Anat Res 2020;8:7247-50.
21. Mahaisavariya B, Sitthiseripratip K, Tongdee T, Bohez ELJ, Sloten JV, Oris P. Morphological study of the proximal femur: a new method of geometrical assessment using 3-dimensional reverse engineering. Medical Engineering & Physics. 2002;24:617–22.
22. Vaishnani H, Gandotra Ar, Shah GV. A comparative study on neck shaft angle and length femur in South Gujarat. Int J Anat Res. 2019;7:6966-9.
23. İyem C, Güvençer M, Karatosun V, Ünver B. Morphometric evaluation of proximal femur in patients with unilateral total hip prosthesis. Clin Anat. 2002;27:478–88.
24. Yoshioka Y, Siu D, Cooke DV, MA, Mb, Chir B, FRCS. The anatomy and functional axes of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:873-80.
25. Verma M, Joshi S, Tuli A, Raheja S, Jain P, Srivastava P. Morphometry of proximal femur in Indian population. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11:AC01-4.
26. Ziylan T, Murshid KA. An analysis of Anatolian human femur anthropometry. Turk J Med Sci. 2002;32:231-5.
27. Unnanuntana A, Toogood P, Hart D, Cooperman D, Grant RE. Evaluation of proximal femoral geometry using digital photographs. J Orthop Res. 2010;28:1399-1404.
28. Lin KJ, Wei HW, Lin KP, Tsai CL, Lee PY. Proximal femoral morphology and the relevance to design of Anatomically precontoured plates: A study of the Chinese population. Sci World J. 2014;2014:106941.
29. Umer M, Sepah A, Khan A. Morphology of the proximal femur in the Pakistan population. J Orthop Surg. 2010;18:279-81.
30. Kamath SU, Agarwal S, Austine J. Morphology of proximal femur in south-west coast of India. Malays Orthop J. 2020;14:143-50.
31. De Sousa E, Fernandes RMP, Mathias MB, Rodrigues MR, Ambram AJ, Babinski MA. Morphometric study of the proximal femur extremity in Brazilians. Int J Morphol. 2010;28:835-40.
32. Akpolat AO, Karaca S, Kılınç F, Akgün E, Karahan N, Kılınç BE. Total diz artroplastisinde kullanılan implantlarının toplumumuza olan uyumunun üç boyutlu BT ile değerlendirilmesi. Bosphorus Med J. 2019;6:75–81.
33. Murshed KA, Çiçekbaşı AE, Karabacakoğlu A, Şeker M, Ziylan T. Distal femur morphometry: a gender and bilateral comparative study using magnetic resonance imaging. Surg Radiol Anat. 2005;27:108–112.
34. Terzidis I,Totl,s T, Papathanasiou E, Sideridis A, Vlasis K, Natsis K. Gender and side-to-side differences of femoral condyles morphology: osteometric data from 360 caucasian dried femori. Anat Res Int. 2012;2012:679658.
35. Behaeghe O, Van Beeck A, Dossche L, Somville J. Femoral anteversion measurement: evaluation of inter- and intraobserver reliability. Acta Orthop Belg. 2020;86:17-21.
36. Chung CY, Lee KM, Park MS, Lee SH, Choi IH, Cho TJ. validity and reliability of measuring femoral anteversion and neck-shaft angle in patients with cerebral palsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:195- 205.
37. Kafa İM, Arı İ. Morfometrik çalışmalarda manüel (el ile) ve dijital (sayısal) - bilgisayar destekli ölçüm yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi. 2004;30:141-4.
38. Siwach R. Anthropometric Study of proximal femur geometry and its clinical application. Ann Natl Acad Med Sci (India). 2018;54:203-15.
39. Wright S,J, Boymans TAEJ, Grimm B, Miles AW, Kessler O. Strong correlation between the morphology of the proximal femur and the geometry of the distal femoral trochlea. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22:2900–10.