Proksimal Ulna'nın Morfometrik ölçümü ve Eklem Tipleri Yönünden İncelenmesi

Abstract

Giriş ve Amaç: Ön kol kemiklerinin iç kısmında bulunan kemik ulna’dır. Önkol kemikleri günlük yaşam aktivitelerinde birçok hareket sırasında çok önemli işlevlere sahiptir. Bunlardan en önemlisi dirsek eklemi vasıtasıyla yapılan ön kol hareketleridir. Ulna’nın radius ve humerus ile birlikte oluşturduğu dirsek ekleminde önemli bir işlevi vardır. Düşme sonucu dirsek ekleminde özellikle ulna’da meydana gelen hasarlar hayatı olumsuz etkiler. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmada kuru ulna kemikleri üzerinde kumpas yardımıyla morfometrik ölçümler yapıldı. Ayrıca ulnar çentiğin eklem yüzeyine göre sınıflandırma yapılmıştır. Bulgular: 32 sağ ve 29 sol proksimal ulna ölçümleri; Sağ ulna’da Tip I ulna oranı %59,37, Tip II ulna oranı %31,25 ve Tip III ulna oranı %9,37 idi. Sol ulna’da bu oranlar Tip I'de %51,72, Tip II'de %31,03 ve Tip III'te %17,24 olarak bulundu. Sonuç: Çalışmamızın kuru kemik çalışmalarında elde edilen değerlerin standardize edilmesine önemli katkı sağlayacağını düşünüyoruz. Ayrıca dirsek eklemine özellikle ulna’ya yapılan cerrahi müdahalelerde proksimal ulna morfometrisi önemlidir. Bu açıdan literatüre katkı sağlayacağına inanıyoruz.

Keywords

• Ulna
• dirsek anatomisi
• ulna morfometrisi

Morphometric Measurement of Proximal Ulna and Investigation in Terms of Joint Types

Abstract

Objective: The bone on the inside of the forearm bones is the ulna. The bones of the forearm have very important functions during many movements in daily life activities. The most important of these is the forearm movements made through the elbow joint. The ulna has an important function in the elbow joint, which it forms together with the radius and humerus. Damages in the elbow joint, especially in the ulna, resulting from falling affect life negatively. Materials and Methods: In the study, morphometric measurements were made on dry ulna bones with the help of caliper. In addition, classification was made according to the articular surface of the ulnar notch. Results: Measurements of 32 right and 29 left proximal ulna; In the right ulnas, the Type I ulna rate was 59.37%, the Type II ulna rate was 31.25%, and the Type III ulna rate was 9.37%. In the left ulna, these rates were 51.72% in Type I, 31.03% in Type II and 17.24% in Type III. Conclusion: We think our study will contribute significantly to standardizing the values obtained in dry bone studies. In addition, proximal ulna morphometry is important in surgical interventions to the elbow joint, especially to the ulna. In this respect, we believe that it will contribute to the literature.

Keywords

• Ulna
• elbow anatomy
• ulna morphometry

References

1. 1. Kabakçı, A.D.A, Ulna’nın Proksimal Bölümünün Anatomik Yapısı. Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 2022, 19(2), 412-420.
2. 2. Patel, D.S, Sıobhan M.S, and Natasha A, Common fractures of the radius and ulna. American Family Physician, 2021, 103(6), 345-354.
3. 3. 3. Cha, S.M, Shin H.D, et al., Corrective osteotomy for malunion of distal diaphyseal/metaphyseal radius or ulna fracture affecting stability of the distal radioulnar joint, Injury, 202, 52(8), 2300-2306.
4. 4. Adams, J.E, Forearm instability: anatomy, biomechanics, and treatment options. The Journal of hand surgery, 2017, 42(1), 47-52.
5. 5. Siebenlist, S, Buchholz, A, Braun, K.F, Fractures of the proximal ulna: current concepts in surgical management, Efort open reviews, 2019, 4(1), 1-9.
6. 6. Totlis, T, Otountzidis, N, et al., Ulnar trochlear notch articular surface has three morphological patterns: a neglected major anatomical feature. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, 2019, 41, 1333-1336.
7. 7. Ünalmış, D, Acer, N, et al., The Calculation of the Femoral Condyle Cartilage Volume and Surface Area in Patients with Osteoarthritis, Erciyes Medical Journal, 2020, 42(2).
8. 8. Tokpinar, A, Yilmaz, S, et al., Morphometric examination of the proximal femur in the hip joint. Experimental and Applied Medical Science, 2020, 1(3), 82–88.

9. 9. Yilmaz, S, Tokpinar, A, et al., Sakrum Kemiğinin Morfometrik Değerlendirilmesi, Bozok Tıp Dergisi, 2018, 8(4), 13–17.
10. 10. Yilmaz, S, Tokpınar, A, et al., Analysis of Average Index Values of Mandible, Eurasian journal of medical investigation, 2019, 3(3), 189-195.
11. 11. Yılmaz, S, Tokpınar, A, et al., Morphometric Investigation of Anatomic Structures on Humerus, Bozok Tıp Dergisi, 2020, 10(2), 125–131.
12. 12. Saygın, D.A, Türkoğlu, F.N, et al., Morphometric Evaluation of Rarely Seen Supratrochlear Foramen and Supracondylar Process in the Humerus in Turkish Population, Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 2022, 19(1), 30–37.
13. 13. Shi, X., Pan, Wu, D, Chen, R, Lin, Z, Pan, J, The impact of varus angulation on proximal fractures of the ulna, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2018, 19, 1-5.
14. 14. Yong, W.J., Tan, J, et al., Morphometric analysis of the proximal ulna using three-dimensional computed tomography and computer-aided design: varus, dorsal, and torsion angulation, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, 2014, 36, 763-768.
15. 15. Öztürk, K., Özdemir, B, et al., Proksimal ulna’nin anatomik mimarisi ve açılanmalari, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 2021, 28(3), 419-426.
16. 16. Grechenig, W., Clement, H, et al., The influence of lateral and anterior angulation of the proximal ulna on the treatment of a Monteggia fracture: an anatomical cadaver study, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume, 2007, 89(6), 836-838.
17. 17. Cowal, L.S, Pastor, R.F, Dimensional variation in the proximal ulna: evaluation of a metric method for sex assessment, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2008, 135(4), 469-478.
18. 18. Beşer , C.G, Demiryürek D, Özsoy H, et al. Redefining the proximal ulna anatomy, Surgical and radiologic anatomy, 2014, 36, 1023-1031.
19. 19. Oberländer, W., Breul, R, Kurrat, H, Transverse groove of the elbow joint. A biomechanical interpretation of its origin, Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Ihre Grenzgebiete, 1984, 122(5), 682-685.