Türk erişkinlerindeki kalça eklem morfolojisinde cinsiyet farklılıkları üzerine radyografik çalışma

Year 2022, , 1 - 7, 23.04.2022

Bekir Karagöz , Murat Bakır , Hasan Bombacı , Muhammet Karaaslan

https://doi.org/10.30569/adiyamansaglik.994600

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Türk toplumunda herhangi bir kalça patolojisi bulunmayan kişilerin radyografilerinde ölçülen kalça eklemi fonksiyonel antropometrik ölçüm değerlerinin dağılımı ve normal sınırlarının belirlenmesi amaçlandı.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Rastgele seçilen 300 hastanın dijital pelvis antero-posterior grafileri incelendi. Bu grafiler üzerinde referans çizgileri çizilerek, femur boyun açısı (FBA), kalça rotasyon merkezi (KRM), abdüktör moment kolu (AMK), vücut ağırlığı moment kolu (VMK) hesaplandı. Ölçüm sonuçlarının dağılımının cinsiyet ve yaş ile olan ilişkileri incelendi.
Bulgular: FBA ortalamalarının erkeklerde anlamlı olacak düzeyde kadınlardan yüksek olduğu saptandı (p<0,05). AMK değerinin erkeklerde, VMK değerinin ise kadınlarda anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek olduğu saptandı (p<0,05). VMK/AMK oranının kadınlarda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olacak şekilde daha yüksek olduğu görüldü (p<0,005).
Sonuç: Türk toplumuna ait AMK, VMK ve VMK/AMK ortalamalarında, kadınlar ile erkekler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur. Elde edilen verilerin protez cerrahisinde ameliyat öncesi planlamada ya da etnik özelliklere uygun protez üretiminde yol gösterici olabileceğini düşünmekteyiz.

Keywords

Femur boyun açısı, Abdüktör moment kolu, Kalça rotasyon merkezi

Radiographic study on sex differences in hip joint morphology for Turkish adults

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to determine the gender differences in hip joint functional anthropometric measurement values in Turkish adults.
Materials and Methods: Digital pelvis anterior-posterior radiographs of 300 randomly selected patients were analyzed. In these radiographs, reference lines were drawn and femoral neck-shaft angle (NSA), hip rotation center (HRC), abductor moment arm (AMA), body weight moment arm (BMA) were calculated. The relationship of the distribution of measurement results with gender and age was examined.
Results: It was determined that the mean NSA scores in men were significantly higher than in women (p<0.05). It was determined that AMA value was significantly higher in men and BMA value was significantly higher in women (p<0.05). BMA/AMA ratio was found to be statistically significantly higher in women (p<0.005).
Conclusion: Statistically significant differences were found between men and women in the mean of AMA, BMA and BMA/AMA in the Turkish population.

Keywords

Femur neck angle, Abductor moment arm, Hip rotation center

References

• Hungerford DS, Borden LS, Hedley AK. Principles and techniques of cementless total hip arthroplasty.In Stillwell WT (ed.): The Art of Total Hip Arthroplasty. Orlando, Florida, Grune and Stratton,1987: 293-316.
• Lum ZC, Dorr LD. Restoration of center of rotation and balance of THR. J Orthop. 2018;15(4):992-996.
• Kay RM, Jaki KA, Skaggs DL. The effect of femoral rotation on the projected femoral neck-shaft angle. J Pediatr Orthop. 2000;20(6):736- 9.
• Lecerf G, Fessy MH, Philippot R, Massin P, Giraud F, Flecher X et al. Femoral offset: anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;95(3):210-9.
• Shrestha R , Gupta HK , Hamal RR. Radiographic Anatomy of the Neck-Shaft Angle of Femur in Nepalese People: Correlation with its Clinical Implication. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2018;16(62):124-128.
• Yi LH, Li R, Zhu ZY, Bai CW, Tang JL, Zhao FC et al. Anatomical study based on 3D-CT image reconstruction of the hip rotation center and femoral offset in a Chinese population: preoperative implications in total hip arthroplasty. Surg Radiol An. 2019;41(1):117-124.
• Nieves JW, Formica C, Ruffing J. Males have larger skeletal size and bone mass than females, despite comparable body size. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(3):529-35.
• Sariali E, Mouttet A, Pasquier G. Three-dimensional hip anatomy in osteoarthritis analysis of the femoral offset. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6):990-7.
• Umebese PF, Adeyekeen A, Moin M. Radiological assessment of femoral neck shaft and anteversion angles in adult hips. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2005;12(2):106-9.
• Traina F, De Clerico M, Biondi F. Sex differences in hip morphology: is stem modularity effective for total hip replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):121-8.
• Unnanuntana A, Toogood P, Hart D. Evaluation of proximal femoral geometry using digital photographs. J Ortho Surg Res.2010;28(11):1399-404.
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics.1977;33(1):159-74.
• Sengodan VC, Sinmayanantham E, Kumar JS. Anthropometric analysis of the hip joint in South Indian population using computed tomography. Indian journal of orthopaedics.2017; 51(2):155–161.
• Roy S, Kundu R,Medda S. Evaluation of proximal femoral geometry in plain anterior-posterior radiograph in eastern-Indian population. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8(9): AC01–AC03.
• Siwach RC, Dahiya S. Anthropometric Study of proximal femur geometry and it’s clinical application. Ann Natl Acad Med Sci. 2018; 54(4): 203-215.
• Rubin PJ, Leyuraz PF, Aubaniac JM. The morphology of the proximal femur.A three dimensional Radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg.1992;74(1):28-32.
• Acar N, Unal M. Radiological evaluation of the proximal femoral geometric features in the Turkish population. Medical Journal of Suleyman Demirel University. 2017;24(4):127–134.
• Gilligan I, Chandraphak S, Mahakkanukrauh P. Femoral neck-shaft angle in humans: variation relating to climate, clothing, lifestyle, sex, age and side. J Anat.2013;223(2):133-51.
• Buller LT, Rosneck J, Monaco FM, Butler R, Smith T, Barsoum WK. Relationship between proximal femoral and acetabular alignment in normal hip joints using 3-dimensional computed tomography. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(2):367-75.
• Nelson DA, Megyesi MS. Sex and ethnic differences in bone architecture. Current Osteoporosis Reports. 2004;2(2):65-9.
• Damien B, Mulhall K, Barker J. Anatomy & Biomechanics of the Hip. The Open Sports Medicine Journal. 2014; 2 (4):65-69.
• Nordin M, Frankel VH. Basic Biomechanics of the Musculoskeletal System. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001:203–221.
• Martin RB, Burr DB, Sharkey NA. Skeletal tissue mechanics. New York: Springer 1998; 0-392.
• Krishnan SP, Carrington RW, Mohiyaddin S, Garlick N. Common misconceptions of normal hip joint relations on pelvic radiographs. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(3):409-12.