Comparative anatomy of the pelvic cavity of rat strains in a translational aspect

Abstract

The anatomy of the pelvic cavity has significant importance in daily clinical applications and surgical interventions such as determining dystocia, surgery of rectal cancers and mesorectal excision, treatment of twisted pouch syndrome and percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation, and pelvic floor disorders. This study aims to determine the diameters and area calculations of the pelvic cavity in mostly preferred rat strains (Wistar Albino, Brown Norway, Sprague Dawley, and Lewis) and investigate the suitability of rats in translational studies in which anatomical conditions are not a cause of dystocia. In this study, pelvis bones were used. Each group consisted of six rats. They were examined morphologically and morphometrically. According to the Kruskal-Wallis analysis to determine whether there is any difference between strains, significant differences were observed between the strains for the length of the symphysis, oblique diameter, true conjugate, anatomical conjugate, and diagonal conjugate parameters (p<0.05). In conclusion, anatomically, Lewis is the most suitable laboratory rat strain that does not predispose to labor dystocia, followed by the Wistar Albino strain. These two strains may be a choice for studies on physiological dystocia. On the other hand, Sprague Dawley is less suitable for experimental studies involving the pelvic inlet, particularly those related to labor dystocia caused by anatomical factors.

Keywords

• Diameter
• Dystocia
• Pelvic inlet
• Rat
• Translational anatomy.

Ratlarda pelvik boşluğun karşılaştırmalı anatomisi

Abstract

Pelvik boşluğun anatomisi, klinik uygulamalar ve rektal kanserlerin cerrahisi, mezorektal eksizyon, torsiyonlu kese sendromu tedavisi, perkütan sakroiliak vida tespiti ve pelvik taban bozuklukları gibi cerrahi müdahalelerde önemli bir yere sahiptir. Bu çalışma, en çok tercih edilen sıçan türlerinde (Wistar Albino, Brown Norway, Sprague Dawley ve Lewis) pelvik boşluğunun çaplarını ve alan hesaplamalarını belirlemeyi ve anatomik koşulların güç doğuma neden olmadığı translasyonel çalışmalarda sıçanların uygunluğunu araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada pelvis kemikleri kullanılmıştır. Her grup altı sıçandan oluşmuştur. Kemikler morfolojik ve morfometrik olarak incelenmiştir. Türler arasında fark olup olmadığını belirlemek için yapılan Kruskal-Wallis analizi sonuçlarına göre LS, DO, CV, CA ve CD parametrelerinde türler arasında anlamlı farklar gözlenmiştir (p<0.05). Sonuç olarak, anatomik açıdan Lewis, güç doğuma eğilim göstermeyen en uygun laboratuvar sıçan türü olup, bunu Wistar Albino türü izlemektedir. Bu iki tür, fizyolojik güç doğum ile ilgili çalışmalarda tercih edilebilir. Öte yandan, Sprague Dawley, özellikle anatomik faktörlere bağlı güç doğum ile ilgili pelvik giriş çalışmalarında daha az uygun bir türdür.

Keywords

• Çap
• güç doğum
• pelvik boşluk
• sıçan
• translasyonel anatomi

References

1. Baltus SC, Geitenbeek RTJ, Frieben M, Thibeau-Sutre E, Wolterink JM, Tan CO, Vermeulen MC, Consten ECJ,
2. Broeders IAMJ, 2025: Deep learning-based pelvimetry in pelvic MRI volumes for pre-operative difficulty assessment of total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc, doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11485-4.
3. Berdnikovs S, Bernstein M, Metzler A, German RZ, 2007: Pelvic growth: ontogeny of size and shape sexual dimorphism in rat pelves. J Morphol, 268(1), 12-22. doi: 10.1002/jmor.10476.
4. Bolshinsky V, Sweet DE, Vitello DJ, Jia X, Holubar SD, Church J, Herts BR, Steele SR, 2024: Using CT-Based Pelvimetry and Visceral Obesity Measurements to Predict Total Mesorectal Excision Quality for Patients Undergoing Rectal Cancer Surgery. Dis Colon Rectum, 67(7), 929-939.
5. Brown A, Johnston R, 2013: Maternal experience of musculoskeletal pain during pregnancy and birth outcomes: significance of lower back and pelvic pain. Midwifery, 29(12), 1346-51.
6. Chiasson RB, 1994: Laboratory Anatomy of The White Rat. Fifth Edition, WCB/McGraw Hill, United States of America.
7. Dufour S, Vandyken B, Forget MJ, Vandyken C, 2018: Association between lumbopelvic pain and pelvic floor dysfunction in women: A cross-sectional study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract, 34, 47-53.
8. Faisal Bin Abdur Raheem M, Ng ZQ, Theophilus M, 2024: The impact of pelvimetry data on rectal cancer surgery—a systematic review. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg, 9, 38.

9. Gruss LT, Schmitt D, 2015: The evolution of the human pelvis: changing adaptations to bipedalism, obstetrics and thermoregulation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 370(1663), 20140063.
10. Handa VL, Pannu HK, Siddique S, Gutman R, VanRooyen J, Cundiff G, 2003: Architectural differences in the bony pelvis of women with and without pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol, 102(6), 1283-90.
11. Holubar SD, 2024: Unraveling Twisted Pouch Syndrome: A Narrative Review of Classification, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention. Inflamm Bowel Dis, izae161.
12. Hong JS, Brown KGM, Waller J, Young CJ, Solomon MJ, 2020: The role of MRI pelvimetry in predicting technical difficulty and outcomes of open and minimally invasive total mesorectal excision: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol, 24(10), 991-1000.
13. Link BC, Haveman RA, Van de Wall BJM, Baumgärtner R, Babst R, Beeres FJP, Haefeli PC, 2024: Percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation with a 3D robot-assisted image-guided navigation system : Technical solutions. Oper Orthop Traumatol, 1-11.
14. Narumoto K, Sugimura M, Saga K, Matsunaga Y, 2015: Changes in pelvic shape among Japanese pregnant women over the last 5 decades. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 41(11), 1687-1692.
15. Oğuz B, Desticioğlu K, 2021: Pelvis Morfolojisi, Radyolojik ve Klinik Anatomisi. TSAD, 2(3), 57-72.
16. Pavličev M, Romero R, Mitteroecker P, 2020: Evolution of the human pelvis and obstructed labor: new explanations of an old obstetrical dilemma. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 222(1), 3-16.
17. Routzong MR, Rieger MM, Cook MS, Ukkan R, Alperin M, 2024: Sexual Dimorphism in the Architectural Design of Rat and Human Pelvic Floor Muscles. J Biomech Eng, 146(10), 101012.
18. Salk I, Cetin M, Salk S, Cetin A, 2016: Determining the Incidence of Gynecoid Pelvis Using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography in Nonpregnant Multiparous Women. Med Princ Pract, 25(1), 40-48.
19. Siccardi M, Valle C, Di Matteo F, Angius V, 2019: A Postural Approach to the Pelvic Diameters of Obstetrics: The Dynamic External Pelvimetry Test. Cureus, 11(11), e6111.
20. Silva RGS, Oliveira WDC, Biagiotti D, Ferreira GJBC, 2019: Pelvimetry of multiparous Nellore cows in the cycling and early puerperal stages. Pesq Vet Bra, 39(5), 348-354.
21. Tresch C, Lallemant M, Nallet C, Offringa Y, Ramanah R, Guerby P, Mottet N, 2024: Updating of pelvimetry standards in modern obstetrics. Sci Rep, 14(1), 3080.
22. Üstündağ Y, Yılmaz O, Kartal M, 2024a: Comparison of the Scapula in Human and laboratory Rat Speices from the Perspective of Translational Anatomy. IGUSABDER, 22, 320-333.
23. Üstündağ Y, Dinç G, Bal R, 2024b: Investigation of Some Ion Channel Expressions in Cochlear Nucleus of Tinnitus Induced Rats. IGUSABDER, 22, 293-307.