Türk Toplumunda Proksimal Femurun Geometrik Özelliklerinin Radyolojik Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı cerrahlar ve implant imalatçıları için bir veri tabanı oluşturmak gayesi ile Türk toplumunda proksimal femur geometrisinin farklı özelliklerini değerlendirmektir.

Gereç ve yöntem: 40- 80 yaş arasındaki 380 (190 erkek, 190 kadın) hastanın doğru pelvis ön-arka dijital görüntüleri elde edildi. Femur başı çapı, horizontal offset, boyun şaft açısı, femur boynu genişliği, boynu uzunluğu ve femur boynu eksen uzunluğu ölçüldü. 

Bulgular: Her iki cinsiyette de, femur başı çapı ve kalçanın horizontal ofsetinde sağ ve sol kalçalar arasında anlamlı fark saptandı. Femur boyun-şaft açısı, femur boyun genişliği, femur boyun uzunluğu ve femur boyun aks uzunluğu ölçümlerinde ise sağ ve sol kalçalar arasında anlamlı fark saptanmadı.

Sonuç: Genellikle erkeklerde kadınlara göre daha yüksek değerler saptandı. Proksimal femur cerrahisi ile uğraşan cerrahlar ve implant imalatçıları için bu çalışma bir veri tabanı hizmeti sunabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Proksimal femur geometrisi; Türk toplumu; Proksimal femur cerrahisi

Radiological Evaluation of the Proximal Femoral Geometric Features in the Turkish Population

Öz

Objective:  The aim of this study is to assess different features of the proximal femoral geometry of the Turkish population to build a database for surgeons and implant manufacturers.

Methods: 380 (190 male, 190 female) antero-posterior direct radiography of pelvis of 40-80 years old patients were reviewed retrospectively. The femoral head diameter, horizontal offset, neck shaft angle, femoral neck width, femoral neck length and the femoral axis length were measured.     

Results: In both genders, there was statistically significant difference between right and left hips at femoral head diameters and horizontal offset of hip. No significant difference was detected at the measurements of neck-shaft angle, femoral neck width, femoral neck length and femoral neck axis length.

Conclusion: Male population most of the time present higher average values than the female population. This study may offer a data base for surgeons and manufacturers who deal with proximal femoral bone surgery. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Proximal femoral geometry; Turkish population; proximal femoral surgery

Kaynakça

1. 1-Pires RE, Prata EF, Gibram AV, et al. Radiographic anatomy of the proximal femur: correlation with the occurrence of fractures. Acta Ortop Bras 2012; 20(2):79–83.
2. 2- Simmermacher RK, Bosch AM, Van der Werken C. The AO/Asif-proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury 1999;30(5):327–332.
3. 3-Xu H, Zhou Y, Liu Q, et al. Femoral morphologic differences in subtypes of high developmental dislocation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468(12):3371–6.
4. 4-Kay RM, Jaki KA, Skaggs DL. The effect of femoral rotation on the projected femoral neck-shaft angle. J Pediatr Orthop 2000;20:736-9.
5. 5-Massin P, Geais L, Astoin E, et al. The anatomic basis for the concept of lateralized femoral stems: a frontal plane radiographic study of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 2000;15: 93–101.
6. 6-Greendale GA, Young JT, Huang MH, et al. Hip axis length in midlife Japanese & Caucasians US residents: No evidence for an ethnic difference. Osteoporos Int 2003;14:320-5.
7. 7-Crabtree N, Lunt M, Holt G, et al. Hip geometry, bone mineral distribution and bone strength in European men and women: The EPOS Study. Bone 2000;27:151-9.
8. 8-Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, et al. The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop 1988; 235: 148–165.

9. 9-Nelson DA, Megyesi MS. Sex and ethnic differences in bone architecture. Curr Osteop Rep 2004;2:65-9.
10. 10-Fang D, Cheung KM, Ruan D, et al. Computed tomographic osteometry of the Asian lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord 1994; 7: 307- 316.
11. 11-Bulent A, Ali O, Omur C, Mazhar T, Mumtaz A. Osteometry of the femora in Turkish individuals: a morphometric study in 114 cadaveric femora as an anatomic basis of femoral component design. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2007;41(1):64-8.
12. 12- Acar N, Harb A, Albaya A, Kaskin H. The clinical results of a novel method for minimal invasive dynamic hip screw fixation of intertrochanteric fractures compared to the conventional one. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2016; 1-9 DOI 10.1007/s00068-016-0690-5.
13. 13-Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Lisi L, et al. Proximal femur geometry to detect and distinguish femoral neck fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2002;13:69–73.
14. 14-Siwach RC, Dahiya S. Anthropometric Study of proximal femur geometry and it’s clinical application. Indian J Orthop 2003;37:247-251.
15. 15-Rawal BR, Ribeiro R, Malhotra R, Bhatnagar N. Anthropometric measurements to design best fit femoral stem for Indian population. Indian J Orthop 2012; 46(1):46-53.
16. 16-Rubin PJ, Leyuraz PF, Aubaniac JM, et al. The morphology of the proximal femur.A three dimensional Radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg[Br] 1992;74-B:28-32.
17. 17-Husmann O, Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, et al. Three dimensional morphology of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 1987;12:444-450.
18. 18-Duthie RA, Bruce MF, Hutchison JD. Changing proximal femoral geometry in north east Scotland: an osteometric study. BMJ 1998;316:1498.
19. 19-O’Neill TW, Grazio S, Spector TD, Silman AJ. Geometric measurements of the proximal femur in UK women: secularincrease between the late 1950s and early 1990s. Osteoporos Int 1996;6(2):136–140.
20. 20- Tércio Henrique Soares de Farias, Vinícius Quadros Borges et al. Radiographic study on the anatomical characteristics of the proximal femur in Brazilian adults revbras ortop 2015;5 0(1):16–21.
21. 21- Mourão AL, Vasconcellos HA. Geometria do fêmur proximalem ossos de brasileiros. Acta Fisiátrica 2001;8(3):113–9.
22. 22- Reid IR, Chin K, Evans MC, Jones JG. Relation between increase in length of hip axis in older women between 1950sand 1990s and increase in age specific rates of hip fracture. BMJ 1994;309:508–520.