Kadın Pelvis Tipleri ve Çapları; Radyolojik Bir Çalışma

Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 86 - 92, 01.01.2022

Engin Çiftçioğlu Nihal İçten Ali Yanık Cem Kopuz Mennan Ece Pirzirenli

https://doi.org/10.19127/bshealthscience.998913

Abstract

Karadeniz bölgesinde yaşayan kadınların pelvis morfolojisi hakkında veriler toplandı ve bunlar analiz edildi. Bu amaçla 15-49 yaş arası toplam 284 kadın üzerinde radyopelvimetrik cetvel yöntemi ile ön-arka ve yan olmak üzere ikişer adet grafi çekildi. Bu grafiler üzerinde ölçümler yapıldı ve bundan yola çıkarak pelvis tipleri belirlendi. Bunu yapmaktaki amacımız, ülkemizde benzer çalışmalara rastlanmamış olması, dolayısıyla klasik kitaplarda yazan pelvik değerlerin kadınlarımızın pelvik değerlerini yansıtıp yansıtmadığını öğrenmek isteği idi. Vakalar, kadın doğum polikliniğine çeşitli nedenlerden dolayı başvuran, gebe olmayan ve metabolik bir rahatsızlığı bulunmayan, 15-49 yaş grubu kadınlar arasından seçildi. Sonuçta gynecoid tipe %64,1, platypelloid tipe %16,5, anthropoid tipe %11,3 ve android tipe %8,1 oranında rastlandı. 284 vakaya ait ortalama pelvis çapları da diameter transversa 12,66 ± 0,75 cm, diameter mediana 11,34 ± 0,88 cm, diameter obliqua I 11,48 ± 0,72 cm, diameter obliqua II 11,78 ± 0,68 cm, conjugata vera 10,77 ± 0,83 cm, anterosagittal çap 5,93 ± 0,61 cm ve posterosagittal çap 5,37 ± 0,7 cm şeklinde bulundu. Bulgularımız klasik kitaplar ve literatürdeki değerlerin Türk Kadını için tam olarak geçerli olmadığını ve pelvis morfolojisinde bölgesel farklılıkların olabileceğini göstermektedir. Bölgesel farklılıkların bilinmesinin klinik uygulamalarda hekimlere yardımcı olacağı kanısındayız.

Keywords

Pelvimetri, Radyoloji, Pelvis tipleri, Pelvis çapları

Female Pelvis Types and Diameters; A Radiological Study

Abstract

Aim of this study was to collect quantitative information of Turkish women’s pelvis morphology who lived in the Blacksea region, and to analyze how these data correlate with those reported in the literature. A radiopelvimetric ruler and two radiographs, one anteroposterior and one lateral, were used to measure the radiological dimensions and to determine the pelvis types on 284 subjects of 15-49 years of age. Subjects were selected among non-pregnant women who referred to obstetrics and gynecology clinic of our university hospital for different reasons. Subjects with any metabolic disorder were discarded from the measurements. The results showed that most of the subjects were of the gynecoid type (64.1%). The remaining were of the anthropoid (11.3%), android (8.1%) and platypelloid (16.5%) types. The mean pelvis diameters were as follows: diameter transversa 12.66 ± 0.75 cm, diameter mediana 11.34 ± 0.88 cm, diameter obliqua I 11.48 ± 0.72 cm, diameter obliqua II 11.78 ± 0.68 cm, conjugata vera 10.77 ± 0.83 cm, anterosagittal diameter 5.93 ± 0.61 cm and posterosagittal diameter 5.37 ± 0.7 cm. These findings of Turkish women do not show exact correlation with those reported in literature and indicates regional differences in the pelvis morphology. Knowledge of such regional differences might be helpful to the practicing consultant.

Keywords

Pelvimetry, Radiology, Pelvic type, Pelvic diameter, Pelvimetri, Pelvimetri, Pelvis tipleri, Pelvis tipleri, Pelvis çapları, Pelvis çapları

References

• Akiel A, Raber H, Al-Meshari AA, Kidess EA. 1988. Low dose CT pelvimetry in Saudi females. Saudi Med J, 9: 173-181.
• Anderson N. 1983. X-Ray pelvimetry: Helpful or harmful? J Fam Pract, 17(3): 405-412.
• Barton JJ, Garbaciak JA, Ryan GM. 1982. The efficacy of X-ray pelvimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 143: 304-311.
• Bochner C. 1986. Anatomic characteristics of the fetal head and maternal pelvis. In: Hacker NF, Moore JG, eds. Essentials of obstetrics and gynecology. Saunders Co, Philadelphia, WB, USA, 1th ed., pp. 82.
• Caldwell WE, Moloy HC. 1933. Anatomical variations in the female pelvis and their effect in labor with a suggested classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 26: 479-503.
• Chen HY, Chen YP, Lee LS, Huang SC. 1982. Pelvimetry of Chinese females with special reference to pelvic type and maternal height. Int Surg, 67: 57-62.
• Dudenhausen JW, Pfammater T, Marincek B, von Schulthess GK, Huch A. 1989. Pelvimetry using magnetic resonance ımaging. Geburtsh u Frauenheilk, 49: 477-480.
• Edwards PD, Brown J, Wade P. 1997. Comparison of pelvimetry techniques. Clin Radiol, 52: 725-726.
• English J, Alcoair K. 1995. Normal pelvic dimensions for Saudi Arabian women in Tabuk obtained by computed tomography pelvimetry. Ann Saudi Med, 15(3): 236-239.
• Griffiths M. 1998. Magnetic-resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation. Lancet 351: 912-913.
• Hellman LM, Pritchard JA, Wynn RM. 1971. Williams obstetrics. Appleton-Century Crofts Educational Division / Meredith Corporation. New York, USA, 14th ed., pp. 290-293, 305-317.
• Judith GH, Froster IUG, Allanson SE. 1989. Handbook of normal physical measurements. Oxford Med Pub, 1: 23-60.
• Kelly KM, Madden DA, Arcares JS, et al. 1975. The utilization and efficiency of pelvimetry. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 125: 66-74.
• Kolawole TM, Adamu SP, Evans KT. 1978. Comparative pelvimetric measurements in Nigerian and Welsh women. Clin Radiol, 29: 85-90.
• Lierse W, Stegner HE, Lassrich MA, Richter E. 1998. Becken inder Schwangerschaft und das Neugeborene. In: Lanz, TW ed., Wachsmuth: Praktishe Anatomie. Teil 8 B. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 3th ed., pp. 193.
• Lundh C, Lindmark G, Wilbrand H. 1986. Reliability of Radiographic pelvimetry - a methodological study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 65: 411-416.
• Meschan I. 1973. Analysis of roentgen signs in general radiology. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia-London-Toronto, USA, 3th ed., pp. 1885-1891.
• Mostafavi HR, Tornetta P. 1996. Radiologic evaluation of the pelvis. Clin Orthop, 329: 6-14.
• Ohlsen H. 1980. Radiologic low-dose pelvimetry: indications and pelvimetry data. Acta Radiol Diagnost, 21: 747-758.
• Pernoll ML, Benson RC. 1987. Currrent obstetric and gynecologic diagnosis and treatment. Middle East Edition, Appleton & Lange. California, USA, 1th ed., pp. 442-445.
• Pitt MJ, Lund PJ, Speer DP. 1990. Imaging of the pelvis and hip. Orthop Clin North Am, 21(3): 545-559.
• Raman S, Samuel D, Suresh KA. 1991. Comparative study of X-ray pelvimetry and CT pelvimetry. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol, 31(3): 217-220.
• Russel JGB, Richards B. 1971. A review of pelvimetry data. Br J Radiol, 44: 780-784.
• Schwarz GS. 1954. A simplified method of correcting roentgenographic measurements of the maternal pelvis and the fetal skull. AJR Am J Roentgenol 71: 115-120.
• Scott JR, DiSaia PJ, Hammond CB, Spellacy WN. 1990. Danforth’s obstetrics and gynecology. JB Lippincott Company 161-177, Philaelphia, USA, 6th ed., pp. 585-594.
• Siccardi M, Valle C, Di Matteo F. 2021. Dynamic external pelvimetry test in third trimester pregnant women: shifting positions affect pelvic biomechanics and create more room in obstetric diameters. Cureus, 13(3): e13631.
• Spörri S, Gyr T, Schollerer A, Werlen S, Schneider H. 1994. Methods, techniques and assesment criteria in obstetric pelvimetry. Z Geburtsh u Perinat, 198: 37-46.
• Sutton D. A 1980. Textbook of radiology and ımaging. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, London, England, Melbourn, New York, 3th ed., pp. 929-934.
• Thoms H. 1941. The clinical application of roentgen pelvimetry and a study of the results in 1100 white women. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 42: 957.
• Varner MW, Cruikshank DP, Laube DW. X-ray pelvimetry in clinical obstetrics. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 56: 296-300.
• Vural F. 1977. Türk kadınlarında pelvis tipleri ve çapları üzerine anatomik ve radiopelvimetrik araştırma. Uzmanlık Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Cerrahpaşa Tıp Fakültesi Anatomi ve Klinik Anatomisi Kürsüsü, İstanbul, Türkiye, ss. 33.
• Williams PL, Warwick R. Gray’s Anatomy. 37th ed. Churchill Livingstone, London, 1989; 422-434.
• Wischnik A, Lehmann KJ, Labeit D, Werner T, Schmidt HG, Hiltmann WD, Melchert FA. 1993. Knowledge-based System for the Interpretation of pelvimetric finding. Z Geburtsh u Perinat, 197: 266-274.
• Wright AR, English PT, Cameron HM, Wilsdon JB. 1992. MR-Pelvimetry - A practical alternative. Acta Radiol, 33(6): 582-587.