An Osteometric Study on HumerusEstudio Osteom142trico del H156me - PDF document

An Osteometric Study on HumerusEstudio OsteomŽtrico del HœmeroAydin Kabakci, A. D.; Yilmaz, M. T.; Cicekcibasi, A. E.; Akõn, D.AYDIN KABAKCI, A. D.; BUYUKMUMCU, M.; YILMAZ, M. T.; CICEKCIBASI, A. E.; AKõN, D. & CIHAN, E. An osteometricstudy on humerus bones. SUMMARY: Humerus is the longest and thickest bone of the upper limb. As a long bone, it has two epiphysis and diaphysis. Inthis study, we aimed to conduct morphometric measurements belonging to human humerus. This study was conducted on 60 humerus(28 right, 32 left) in collections of Necmettin Erbakan University Meram Medicine Faculty Anatomy Laboratory. Digital calipers,osteometric board and precision scales for humerus bone measurements were used. Measurements were classified as measurements odiaphysis and proximal and distal epiphysis of humerus. Each bone weight was determined. Also nutrient foramen number and localwas determined. In this study, it was determined that mean right humerus length 30.41mm. It was identified that mean right humerus weight was 115.0528.06 g, mean left humerus weigh twas 111.63(15 %), supratrochlear foramen has been observed. 6 of these were oval and 3 of them were round. Nutrient foramen has not beenobserved in two humerus (3.3 %). Also, medium and weak correlation was identified between many parameters. We believe that theKEY WORDS: Humerus; Morphometry, Osteometry.connects the shoulder and elbow joints to each other.., 2011; Desai &vis and cranium, humerus, tibia, femur, sternum, ulna, talus,studies. As a result of the bone deformities formed due todetermination. Therefore, humerus has been frequently., 2011; Tellioglu & Karakas, 2013). In lineMATERIAL AND METHODNecmettin Erbakan University, Meram Medical University,Anatomy Laboratory. The permissions were obtained fromNecmettin Erbakan University, Pharmaceuticals and Non-epiphysis of humerus. Weights of each bone were measuredMeasurements of proximal epiphysis of humerus:MHL (Maximum humerus length): The distance between Department of Anatomy, Meram Faculty of Medicine, University of Necmettin Erbakan, Konya, Turkey.Deha Special Education and Rehabilitation Center, Konya, Turkey. TDHH (Transverse diameter of humeral head): VDHH (Vertical diameter of humeral head): The diameterCSN(C

ircumference of surgical neck): The circumferenceBGL-BGW-BGD Fig. 1. A:TDHH: Transverse diameter measurement of humeral head and B: VDHH: Vertical diameter measurementof humeral head with digital caliper.Fig. 2. A. MHL: Maximum humeral length measurement wit osteometric board,HH-GT: The distance between the highest point of the hu-circumference of surgical neck.Measurements of the humerus diaphysis: It is the diameter of theCLHB (Circumference length of humerusMeasurements of distal epiphysis ofLength of the capitulum - WidthLTH-WTH: Length of the trochlea - Width Length, width and depthAYDIN KABAKCI, A. D.; BUYUKMUMCU, M.; YILMAZ, M. T.; CICEKCIBASI, A. E.; AKõN, D. & CIHAN, E Length, width and depth of the olecranon The distance betweenprecision scale (Fig. 4). The number of nutrient foramen wasdetermined by considering the proximal and distal margins ofthese holes were also measured. The obtained data weredifferences were accepted significant if pRESULTSIn this study, morphometric measurements wereparameters were determined (Table I). According to23.9 mm. Themean weight of the right humerus was 115.05the mean weight of the left humerus was111.63left side respectively. Besides, in our study, nutrient foramennutrient foramen in 52 humerus (86.6 %), and there were twonutrient foramen in 6 humerus (10 %). There was no nutrientwhich were measured in our study (Tables II, III).In anatomy, paleoanthropology and forensic medicine Fig. 3. A: MINDHB:Minimum diameter measurement of humerus diaphysis, B: MAXDHB: Maximum diameter measurementof humerus diaphysis and C: WOF: Width measurement of olecranon fossa with digital caliper Fig. 4. Weight measurement of humerus with precision scaleAYDIN KABAKCI, A. D.; BUYUKMUMCU, M.; YILMAZ, M. T.; CICEKCIBASI, A. E.; AKõN, D. & CIHAN, E skull skeleton bones. Particularly, femur and humerus whichdifferences between female and male individuals. When themorphological characteristics which show the gender differenceare examined. These features can be frontal eminence, occipitalsize differences of various bones in male and female skeletons.; Desai & Shaik; Tellioglu & Karakas; Harun,2008). In our study, morphometric features of humerus were Right HumerusLeft HumerusParametersNMin.Max.Mean±SDNMin.Max

.Mean±SDMHL2627.5034.2030.41±1.733126.3034.4030.04±2.40TDHH2434.1544.4738.29±3.043032.2745.6838.66±3.92VDHH2435.7049.3342.41±3.253035.4951.7442.94±4.01267.3010.908.69±0.99317.2010.609.32±0.852658.8287.0975.59±6.053165.6596.2477.20±6.83266.1210.428.06±1.16316.5310.258.15±0.92DBG262.177.244.89±1.38312.206.254.48±0.99HH-GT243.448.776.39±1.44292.628.975.83±1.72HH-GSN2627.740.0533.08±3.303120.9638.6832.50±3.40M_NDHB2817.2025.1420.63±2.153215.2923.7019.67±2.30MAXDHB2814.4424.2820.36±2.353218.1125.0220.59±1.98CLHB285.707.406.58±0.47326.108.206.85±0.57LCH2815.8122.8318.32±1.603113.7620.4217.34±1.842814.1318.6815.84±1.213113.9520.4517.12±1.842817.0225.1021.13±1.923116.4525.4520.71±2.042814.7822.5317.71±2.34319.0820.6015.88±2.38LCF286.4813.6611.24±1.59324.4150.9312.54±7.66WCF2810.0916.1812.95±1.73326.0515.6412.42±2.07DCF284.999.357.44±1.14323.9010.376.82±1.35LRF286.9010.558.52±1.23325.0510.148.03±1.43WRF289.7815.0312.82±1.79328.4716.3810.90±1.89DRF282.177.263.41±1.10321.466.473.34±1.012816.7323.0019.10±1.453216.1823.0819.46±1.942820.1430.7124.72±2.313220.7129.8225.16±2.45DOF289.8216.7413.41±1.783212.0518.0214.60±1.44POF-DTH2829.8238.9433.81±2.703228.5242.0635.69±3.13LE-ME2649.4269.3758.21±4.583146.3064.4456.36±5.01ME-TH2619.5029.8424.62±2.413120.2832.4226.17±3.23VDSTF32.426.073.91±1.9162.856.314.21±1.29TDSFT32.119.405.23±3.7462.549.584.80±2.652359.78169.03115.05±28.062647.20172.78111.63±33.34Besides, they also emphasized that there were no sufficientof the distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. Therefore, they aimedepiphysis. As a conclusion, they determined that WCH, LCH,WTH and LTH were respectively 17,22 mm. Furthermore, they showed that(r=0.772), WTH-WCH (r=0.676), and WTH-LTH (r=0.454).There was a significant difference between WCH and LCHspherical appearance. In our study, WCH, LCH, WTH andLTH were found in right-left humerus significantly asFurthermore, the association between LCH-WCH and WTH-Table I. Mean values, standard deviations and minumum-maximum values of parameters belonging to humerus (mm).(Parameters related to MHL and GSN are centimeter, other parameters are milimeter).AYDIN KABAKCI, A. D.; BUYUKMUMCU, M.; YILMAZ, M. T.; CICEKCIBASI, A. E.; AKõN, D. & CIHAN, E Table

II. Pearson correlation coefficient between parameters belonging to right humerus.AYDIN KABAKCI, A. D.; BUYUKMUMCU, M.; YILMAZ, M. T.; CICEKCIBASI, A. E.; AKõN, D. & CIHAN, E PARAMETERS LE-ME POF-DTH LOF WOF DCF WCF LTH LCH CLHB M_NDHB GSN 0.827** 0.630** 0.599** 0.510** 0.485* 0.452* 0.443* 0.624** 0.402* 0.391* 0.459* 0.537** 0.494* 0.432* 0.638** 0.459* 0.574** 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.012 0.021 0.024 0.001 0.042 0.048 0.018 0.005 0.010 0.027 0.000 0.024 0.003 0.597** 0.0734** 0.292 0.202 0.493* 0.248 0.166 0.799** 0.600** 0.383 0.631* 0.724** 0.646* 0.464* 0.731** 0.873** 0.003 0.000 0.166 0.344 0.014 0.243 0.440 0.000 0.002 0.064 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.780** 0.814** 0.398 0.255 0.452* 0.360 0.387 0.858** 0.626** 0.331 0.626** 0.781** 0.750** 0.557** 0.813** 0.000 0.000 0.054 0.228 0.027 0.084 0.062 0.000 0.001 0.114 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.785** 0.808** 0.375 0.550** 0.450* 0.300 0.455* 0.800** 0.564** 0.572** 0.647** 0.888** 0.845** 0.739** GSN 0.00 0.000 0.059 0.04 0.021 0.136 0.020 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.584** 0.598** 0.234 0.235 0.543** 0.398* 0.629** 0.473* 0.248 0.419* 0.509** 0.750** 0.639** MINDHB 0.003 0.001 0.231 0.228 0.003 0.036 0.000 0.011 0.204 0.027 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.674** 0.634** 0.245 0.411* 0.327 0.224 0.430* 0.739** 0.460* 0.449* 0.624** 0.793** 0.000 0.001 0.209 0.030 0.089 0.251 0.022 0.000 0.014 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.783** 0.739** 0.203 0.234 0.361 0.388* 0.588* 0.712** 0.500** 0.416* 0.639** CLHB 0.000 0.000 0.301 0.230 0.059 0.042 0.001 0.000 0.007 0.028 0.000 0.595** 0.657** 0.283 0.321 0.420* 0.206 0.232 0.723** 0.574** 0.535** LCH 0.003 0.000 0.145 0.095 0.026 0.293 0.235 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.429* 0.481* 0.237 0.303 0.240 0.064 -0.014 0.416* 0.576** WCH 0.041 0.013 0.225 0.117 0.218 0.746 0.944 0.028 0.001 0.541** 0.657** 0.488** 0.250 0.122 0.338 0.090 0.695** LTH 0.008 0.000 0.008 0.200 0.536 0.079 0.650 0.000 0.758** 0.809** 0.513** 0.505** 0.387* 0.246 0.315 WTH 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.006 0.042 0.208 0.103 0.497* 0.394* 0.357 0.215 0.340 0.571** WCF 0.016 0.046 0.062 0.273 0.077 0.002 0.419* 0.393* 0.224 -0.028 -0.013 DCF 0.047 0.047 0.251 0.887 0.947 0.491* 0.502** 0.280 0.246 WOF 0.017 0.009 0.149 0.207 0.329 0.351 0.602** 0.126 0.078 0.001 0.367 0.550**

POF-DTH 0.085 0.004 0.743** LE-ME 0.000 Table III. Pearson correlation coefficient between parameters belonging to left humerus.AYDIN KABAKCI, A. D.; BUYUKMUMCU, M.; YILMAZ, M. T.; CICEKCIBASI, A. E.; AKõN, D. & CIHAN, E PARAMETERS LE-ME POF-DTH WOF DCF WCF WTH LTH LCH M_NDHB GSN 0.751** 0.810** 0.705 ** 0.437* 0.642** 0.666** 0.614** 0.633*** 0.4519** 0.629** 0.431* 0.700** 0.505** 0.530** 0.742** 0.824** 0.865** MHL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.768** 0.514** 0.519** 0.411* 0.641** 0.731** 0.606** 0.620** 0.640** 0.778 0.520** 0.805** 0.670* 0.636** 0.756** 0.913** 0.000 0.004 0.003 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.766** 0.728** 0.492** 0.262 0.583* 0.629** 0.498* 0.592** 0.626** 0.723** 0.487* 0.773** 0.611** 0.695** 0.802** 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.162 0.001 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.745** 0.572** 0.487** 0.370* 0.648** 0.426* 0.356* 0.421* 0.548** 0.556** 0.526** 0.829** 0.707** 0.665** GSN 0.00 0.001 0.005 0.041 0.000 0.017 0.050 0.020 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.637** 0.124 0.222 0.200 0.409* 0.475** 0.479** 0.382* 0.644** 0.408* 0.432* 0.704** 0.627** MINDHB 0.000 0.507 0.221 0.272 0.020 0.006 0.006 0.034 0.000 0.023 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.512** 0.409* 0.277 0.304 0.583** 0.423* 0.415* 0.342 0.521** 0.435* 0.377* 0.837** 0.008 0.022 0.124 0.091 0.000 0.016 0.018 0.060 0.003 0.014 0.036 0.000 0.589** 0.573** 0.459** 0.403* 0.639** 0.455** 0.460** 0.343 0.642** 0.493* 0.479** CLHB 0.002 0.001 0.008 0.022 0.000 0.009 0.008 0.059 0.000 0.005 0.006 0.550** 0.587** 0.490** 0.022 0.553** 0.183 0.414* 0.386* 0.732** 0.648** LCH 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.906 0.001 0.326 0.021 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.653** 0.722** 0.410* 0.129 0.565** 0.442* 0.412* 0.544** 0.549** 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.488 0.001 0.013 0.013 0.002 0.002 0.593** 0.752** 0.543** 0.195 0.583** 0.325 0.532** 0.490** LTH 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.294 0.001 0.074 0.002 0.005 0.529** 0.631** 0.51** 0.155 0.454* 0.514** 0.725** WTH 0.005 0.000 0.003 0.405 0.010 0.003 0.000 0.611** 0.691** 0.381* 0.135 0.468** 0.673** WCF 0.001 0.000 0.031 0.463 0.007 0.000 0.504** 0.531** 0.268 0.302 0.048* DCF 0.009 0.002 0.138 0.093 0.010 0.673** 0.54

8** 0.548** 0.486** WOF 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.256 0.134 0.442* 0.207 0.474 0.011 0.621** 0.455** POF-DTH 0.001 0.010 0.685** LE-ME 0.000 association between WTH-LTH (Tables I, II, III).et al. (2009) performed a study with 40 dry adultmaximum humerus length and various parameters. They foundmaximum humerus length and LE-ME (r=0.69), LTH (r=0.83),TDHH (r=0.77) and VDHH (r=0.77) (p)LE-ME, LTH, TDHH and VDHH were determinedrespectively as r=0.63, r=0.74, r=0.65, r=0.57. In our study,the relationship between MHL and LE-ME, LTH, TDHH andVDHH was different than the relationship found in the studycompared to the right humerus (Tables II, III).been determined in various studies. Particularly, it has beenforensic and anthropological cases (Table IV). In this study, itdiaphysis. Conclusively, it was found that mean MHL valuesLowrance (1965), Akman . (2011)of the elbow joint. Therefore, anatomical metric values ofolecranon can be reference to orthopedic surgeons about frac-1,94 mm. These distances wereother by a thin bone plate. This plate presents till the age of 7.Later, a foramen, named as septal apertura or supratrochlearmen has also been studied in other primates. Recently,supratrochlear foramen is examined in different populations(Table V). Kaur & Zorasingh (2013), performed a study with ÊMHLResearchersRightLeftAkman et al. (2006)307.1±20.8304.8±20.8Bokariya et al. (2011)312.9±1.74307.0±1.27Niraj et al. (2014) 308.5±19.16 307.2±16.13Somesh et al. (2011)299.6±22.5309.6±20.6Desai & Shaik (2012)292.3±22.9289.45±21.8Salles et al. (2009) 313±23 305±16Latimer & Lowrance (1965) 303±17.71 300.85±18.3 5 Udhaya et al. (2011)302.8±24.4299.9±20.1Our study304.1±17.3300.4±23.9Table IV. Maximum humeral lenght (mm).Table V. Prevalance of SFT (%).AYDIN KABAKCI, A. D.; BUYUKMUMCU, M.; YILMAZ, M. T.; CICEKCIBASI, A. E.; AKõN, D. & CIHAN, E ResearchersPopulationSamplesPrevalence of SFT (% ) …ztŸrk et al. (2000)Egyptians114 dired humeri7.90‚imen et al ( ) Turks114 dired humeri12.05Sin g hal & Rao ( ) South Indians150 dired humeri28 y ak et al. ( 2009 ) Indians384 dired humeri34,3Li et al. ( 2015 ) Chinese262 dired humeri10.3Kaur & Zorasin g ( 2013 ) Indians80 dired humeri27.5Erdo _ _ et al ( ) Turks166 dired

humeri10.8Ndou et al. (2013)South africans1076 dired humeri32.5Diwan et al. ( 2013 ) North Indians1776 dired humeri24.1Patel et al ( ) Indians565 dired humeri23.5Sunday et al. (2014)Nigerians65 dired humeri27.7Kumarasam y et al. ( 2011 ) Indians214 dired humeri31.3Our stud y ( 2016 ) Turks60 dired humeri15 supratrochlear foramens compared to right humerus. This ratestudy, it was shown that this rate was lower compared to theAYDIN KABAKCI, A. D.; BUYUKMUMCU, M.; YILMAZ, M. T.; CICEKCIBASI, A. E.; AKõN, D. & CIHAN, E. Estudio osteomŽtrico del El hœmero es el hueso m‡s largo y grueso del miembro superior. Como un hueso largo, tiene dos ep’fisis y una di‡fisis. En esteizquierdos) en colecciones del Laboratorio de Anatom’a de la Facultad de Medicina Meram,Necmettin Erbakan University, Se utilcorporal y distal. Se determin— el peso de cada hueso. TambiŽn se determin— el nœmero y la localizaci—n de los for‡menes nutric 1,73 mm y la del hœmero izquierdo fue de 30,04 2,39 mm. El peso medio del hœmero derecho fue 115,05 28,06g y el izquierdo 111,63 33,34 g. En 9 hœmeros (15 %), se observ— un foramen supratroclear, seis de ellos eran ovales y tres redondos.No se observ—foramen nutricio en dos hœmeros (3,3 %). Adem‡s, se identific— una correlaci—n media y dŽbil entre varios par‡metros. Creemos qPALABRAS CLAVE: Hœmero; Morfometr’a; Osteometr’a. Akman, S. D.; Karakas, P. & Bozkõr, M. G. The morphometric measurementsTurk. J. Med. Sci., 36(2)Bokariya, P. Bokariya, R. Gudadhe, D.; Shyamal, A.; Tirpude, B. H. &Shende, M. R. The anthropometric measurement of humerus segments.J. Forensic Med. Toxicol., 28(1):53-5, 2011.Churchill, S. E. & Smith, F. H. A modern human humerus from the earlyAurignacian of Vogelherdhšhle (Stetten, Germany). Anthropol., 112(2)‚imen, M.; Kosar, Y. & Sšnmez, M. Humerusta apertura septalis ile ilgiliAntropoloji, 14Desai, S. D. & Shaik, H. S. A morphometric study of humerus segments. Desai, S. J.; Deluce, S.; Johnson, J. A.; Ferreira, L. M.; Leclerc, A. E.;Athwal, G. S. & King, G. J. An anthropometric study of the distalJ. Shoulder Elbow Surg., 23(4)Diwan, R. K.; Rani, A.; R

ani, A.; Chopra, J.; Srivastava, A. K.; Sharma, P.K.; Verma, R. K. & Pankaj, A. K. Incidence of supratrochlear foramenErdogmus, S.; Guler, M.; Eroglu, S. & Duran, N. The importance of thesupratrochlear foramen of the humerus in humans: an anatomical study.Kol ve Bacak Kemiklerindeki Cinsiyet Kriterleri: Tepecik Toplumu Ph.D. Thesis. Ankara, Ankara University, 2008.,Kaur, J. & Zorasingh. Supratrochlear foramen of humerus - A morphometricstudy. Indian J. Basic Appl. Med. Res., 2(7)Kumarasamy, S. A.; Subramanian, M.; Gnanasundaram, V,; Subramanian,Rev.Argent. Anat. Clin., 3(1):32-6, 2011.Latimer, H. B. & Lowrance, E. W. Bilateral asymmetry in weight and inLi, J.; Mao, Q.; Li, W. & Li, X. An anatomical study of the supratrochlearTurk. J. Med. Sci., 45(6)Meckel, J. H.; Kate, B. R. & Dubey, P. N. A note on the septal apertures inEast. Anthropol., 33Nayak, S. R.; Das, S.; Krishnamurthy, A.; Prabhu, L. V. & Potu, B. K.Supratrochlear foramen of the humerus: An anatomico-radiologicalUps. J. Med. Sci., 114(2)Ndou, R.; Smith, P.; Gemell, R. & Mohatla, O. The supratrochlear foramenof the humerus in a South African dry bone sample. Niraj, P.; Dangol, P. M. S. & Ranjit, N. Measurement of length and weight…ztŸrk, A. Humerusta foramen supratrochlearis (anatomik alõsma). Patel, S. V.; Sutaria, L. K.; Nayak, T. V.; Kankiya, D. P.; Patel, B. M. &Aterkar, S. H. Morphomeric study of supratrochlear foramen of humerus.Int. J. Biomed. Adv. Res., 4(2)Salles, A. D.; Carvalho, C. R. F.; Silva, D. M. & Santana, L. A.Singhal, S. & Rao, V. Supratrochlear foramen of the humerus. Somesh, M. S.; Prabhu, L. V.; Shilpa, K.; Paõ, M. M.; Krõshnamurthy, A. &Murlõmanju, B. V. Morphometric study of the humerus segments in:1174-80, 2011.Sunday, O. O.; Olusegun, O. S. & Oluwabunmi, B. M. The supratrochlearJ. Biol. Agric. Healthc., 4(7)Tellioglu, A. M. & Karakas, S. HumerusÕtan morfometrik yšntemlerleF. †. Sag. Tõp Derg., 27(2)Udhaya, K.; Sarala Devi, K. V. & Sridhar, J. Regression equation forestimation of length of humerus from its segments: A South Indianpopulation study. :783-6, 2011.AYDIN KABAK‚I, InstructorDepartment of AnatomyAccepted: 23-11-2016AYDIN KABAKCI, A. D.; BUYUKMUMCU, M.; YILMAZ, M. T.; CICEKCIBASI, A. E.; AKõN, D. & CIH