Kişiye Özgü Humerus Protezi Dizaynı için Humerus’un Proksimal Bölümünün Morfometrik Özelliklerinin Tahmin Edilmesi
Abstract
İnsan kolu ve omuz eklemi, üst ekstremitedeki en fazla ağırlık taşıyan kemik olan humerus'a bağlıdır. Bir bireyin yaşam kalitesi, bir humerus kırığı tarafından etkilenebilir; mevcut protez sistemlerinin kalıp geometrisi, artroplasti sonrası anatomik restorasyon elde etme sürecini karmaşıklaştırır. Bu çalışmada, bireyin humerus'unun distal ucunun morfometrik özelliklerinden türetilen, humerus'un proksimal ucunun morfometrik özellikleri hakkında hipotezler oluşturmak amaçlandı ve böylece kişiselleştirilmiş bir humeral protez dizaynı geliştirme yönünde yeni formüller ortaya kondu. Çalışmada 33 kuru humerus kemiği kullanıldı; istatistiksel analiz için IBM SPSS Statistics v28.0 kullanıldı. Bu makale, proksimal humerus morfometrik özelliklerini belirlemek amacıyla 33 kuru humerus kemiği kullanarak öngörücü doğrusal regresyon modelleri geliştirmiştir. Yaklaşım, hasta spesifik humeral protez tasarımında gelişmeler gösterdi ve mevcut standartlaştırılmış protez sistemleriyle ilgili sorunlara bir çözüm sundu. Kapsamlı yaklaşım, klinik olarak ilgili yaklaşım ve çalışmanın sonuçlarının net sunumu, hasta spesifik humeral protezlerin oluşturulmasında önemli bir kaynak haline getiriyor. Geliştirilen denklemler, cerrahi sonuçları ve hasta yaşam kalitesini artırabilir. Bu denklemlerin in vivo olarak CT görüntüleme ve klinik veriler kullanılarak doğrulanması, sonraki çalışmalarda ön planda olmalıdır.
Keywords
References
- 1. Ballmer FT, Sidles JA, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA, 3rd. Humeral head prosthetic arthroplasty: Surgically relevant geometric considerations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. Nov 1993;2(6):296-304. doi:10.1016/1058-2746(93)90075-R
- 2. Boileau P, Walch G. The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Sep 1997;79(5):857-65. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.79b5.7579
- 3. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. Jul-Aug 2002;11(4):331-8. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.124429
- 4. Yılmaz S, Tokpınar A, Taştan M, Ateş Ş, Ünalmış D, Patat D. HUMERUS ÜZERİNDE ANATOMİK YAPILARIN MORFOMETRİK OLARAK İNCELENMESİ Morphometric Investigation of Anatomic Structures on Humerus. Bozok Tıp Dergisi. June 2020;10(2):125-131.
- 5. Jones RB. Hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. Indications, pitfalls, and technique. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2013;71 Suppl 2:60-3.
- 6. Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Yamaguchi K. Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Nov 2000;82(11):1594-602. doi:10.2106/00004623-200011000-00013
- 7. van Schaardenburgh FE, Nguyen HC, Magre J, Willemsen K, van Rietbergen B, Nijs S. Prediction of the Proximal Humerus Morphology Based on a Statistical Shape Model with Two Parameters: Comparison to Contralateral Registration Method. Bioengineering (Basel). Oct 13 2023;10(10)doi:10.3390/bioengineering10101185
- 8. Lowry V, Lavigne P, Zidarov D, Matifat E, Cormier AA, Desmeules F. A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Various Shoulder Disorders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Feb 2024;105(2):411-426. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2023.09.022
- 9. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. Jan-Feb 2005;14(1 Suppl S):147S-161S. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006
- 10. Ruff CB. Body size, body shape, and long bone strength in modern humans. J Hum Evol. Feb 2000;38(2):269-90. doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0322
- 11. Conti G, Cristofolini L, Juszczyk M, Leardini A, Viceconti M. Comparison of three standard anatomical reference frames for the tibia-fibula complex. J Biomech. Dec 5 2008;41(16):3384-9. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.09.009
- 12. Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, Sherman KP. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating. Clin Orthop Relat R. Mar 2006;(444):184-192. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000201148.06454.ef
- 13. Saers JPP, DeMars LJ, Stephens NB, et al. Automated resolution independent method for comparing in vivo and dry trabecular bone. Am J Phys Anthropol. Apr 2021;174(4):822-831. doi:10.1002/ajpa.24181
- 14. Dash S, Pinky, Arora V, et al. Promoting in-vivo bone regeneration using facile engineered load-bearing 3D bioactive scaffold. Biomed Mater. May 1 2022;17(3)doi:ARTN 034101 10.1088/1748-605X/ac58d6
Prediction of Proximal Humerus Morphometric Characteristics for Patient-Specific Humerus Prosthesis Design
Abstract
The human arm and shoulder joint depend on the humerus, which is the bone that bears the most weight in the upper limb. An individual's quality of life could be affected by a humeral fracture; the rigid geometry of current prosthetic systems complicates the process of obtaining anatomical restoration after arthroplasty. This study aimed to generate hypotheses about the morphometric properties of the proximal end of the humerus, derived from the morphometric characteristics of the distal end of the individual's humerus, to enable the construction of a personalized humeral prosthesis. There were 33 dry humerus bones used in the study; IBM SPSS Statistics was used for statistical analysis. This paper developed predictive linear regression models using 33 dry humeral bones in order to determine proximal humerus morphometric features. The approach showed developments in patient-specific humeral prosthetic design and offers a solution to problems related with current standardized prosthetic systems. The thorough approach, clinically relevant approach, and clear presentation of results of the study make it a major source for building patient-specific humeral prosthesis. The developed equations might improve surgical results and patient quality of life. Validating these equations in vivo using CT imaging and clinical data should be given priority in future studies.
Keywords
References
- 1. Ballmer FT, Sidles JA, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA, 3rd. Humeral head prosthetic arthroplasty: Surgically relevant geometric considerations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. Nov 1993;2(6):296-304. doi:10.1016/1058-2746(93)90075-R
- 2. Boileau P, Walch G. The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Sep 1997;79(5):857-65. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.79b5.7579
- 3. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. Jul-Aug 2002;11(4):331-8. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.124429
- 4. Yılmaz S, Tokpınar A, Taştan M, Ateş Ş, Ünalmış D, Patat D. HUMERUS ÜZERİNDE ANATOMİK YAPILARIN MORFOMETRİK OLARAK İNCELENMESİ Morphometric Investigation of Anatomic Structures on Humerus. Bozok Tıp Dergisi. June 2020;10(2):125-131.
- 5. Jones RB. Hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. Indications, pitfalls, and technique. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2013;71 Suppl 2:60-3.
- 6. Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Yamaguchi K. Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Nov 2000;82(11):1594-602. doi:10.2106/00004623-200011000-00013
- 7. van Schaardenburgh FE, Nguyen HC, Magre J, Willemsen K, van Rietbergen B, Nijs S. Prediction of the Proximal Humerus Morphology Based on a Statistical Shape Model with Two Parameters: Comparison to Contralateral Registration Method. Bioengineering (Basel). Oct 13 2023;10(10)doi:10.3390/bioengineering10101185
- 8. Lowry V, Lavigne P, Zidarov D, Matifat E, Cormier AA, Desmeules F. A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Various Shoulder Disorders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Feb 2024;105(2):411-426. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2023.09.022
- 9. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. Jan-Feb 2005;14(1 Suppl S):147S-161S. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006
- 10. Ruff CB. Body size, body shape, and long bone strength in modern humans. J Hum Evol. Feb 2000;38(2):269-90. doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0322
- 11. Conti G, Cristofolini L, Juszczyk M, Leardini A, Viceconti M. Comparison of three standard anatomical reference frames for the tibia-fibula complex. J Biomech. Dec 5 2008;41(16):3384-9. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.09.009
- 12. Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, Sherman KP. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating. Clin Orthop Relat R. Mar 2006;(444):184-192. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000201148.06454.ef
- 13. Saers JPP, DeMars LJ, Stephens NB, et al. Automated resolution independent method for comparing in vivo and dry trabecular bone. Am J Phys Anthropol. Apr 2021;174(4):822-831. doi:10.1002/ajpa.24181
- 14. Dash S, Pinky, Arora V, et al. Promoting in-vivo bone regeneration using facile engineered load-bearing 3D bioactive scaffold. Biomed Mater. May 1 2022;17(3)doi:ARTN 034101 10.1088/1748-605X/ac58d6
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Anatomy |
| Journal Section | Research Article |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | May 27, 2025 |
| Submission Date | March 6, 2025 |
| Acceptance Date | April 8, 2025 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2025 Volume: 51 Issue: 1 |
ISSN: 1300-414X, e-ISSN: 2645-9027
Creative Commons License
Journal of Uludag University Medical Faculty is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
2023