髓内钉手术进针点的探讨&mdash;&mdash;股骨近端解剖学测量

张振华 夏丹豪 沈建明 王永奎 徐高磊*

doi:10.16098/j.issn.0529-1356.2017.03.012

PDF(455 KB)

解剖学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (3) : 322-326. DOI: 10.16098/j.issn.0529-1356.2017.03.012

解剖学

髓内钉手术进针点的探讨——股骨近端解剖学测量

张振华¹夏丹豪² 沈建明² 王永奎¹ 徐高磊^1*

作者信息 +

Anatomy of the proximal femur for intramedullary femoral nailing

ZHANG Zhen-hua¹ XIA Dan-hao²SHEN Jian-ming² WANG Yong-kui¹XU Gao-lei ^1*

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

目的旨在髓内钉手术进针点术语的标准化，探索股骨近端可靠的骨性标志与周围软组织的解剖学关系。方法查阅关于顺行髓内钉进针点的文献，重点关注“梨状窝”和“转子窝”两个术语。选取国人成人股骨干标本130例，分析转子窝与大转子的关系。选取国人成人尸体下肢标本20例，观察股骨近端软组织附着，测量梨状肌、闭孔内肌和闭孔外肌肌腱相关数据。结果（1）如果没有梨状窝则转子窝是髓内钉标准的进针点。（2）样本中3.85%的大转子完全不遮挡转子窝，76.15%的大转子包绕转子窝但不遮挡，20.00%部分遮挡。（3）梨状肌纵径和横径的均值分别为（6.74±1.21）mm和（4.29±1.37）mm，闭孔内肌纵径和横径的均值分别为（6.36±1.74）mm和（5.74±1.61）mm，闭孔外肌纵径和横径的平均值分别为（6.26±1.13）mm和（4.57±1.26）mm。（4）梨状肌附着点前、后缘距大转子后缘的距离占大转子长度的百分比分别为（57.9±8.8）%和（43.8±8.7）%，闭孔内肌的分别为（65.6±7.3）%和（52.6±6.9）%。结论所谓的梨状窝应被称为转子窝；因为大转子与转子窝不同的关系，股骨钉的进针点是可变的，转子窝不能被视为通用的进针点；肌腱的定量数据有助于优化手术入路。

Abstract

Objective To standardize the terminology related to the entry point and to explore the relationship between the proximal femoral bone markers and the surrounding soft tissues. Methods Previous publications about the suggested entry point for antegrade femoral nailing were reviewed and special attention was paid to “trochanteric fossa” and“piriform fossa”. The relationship between the trochanteric fossa but the greater trochanter in 130 Chinese adult dried femurs was analyzed. Twenty cadaveric lower limb specimens were dissected toobserve proximal femur soft tissue attachments and to measure data related with piriform muscle, internal and external obturator muscle. Results Firstly, the trochanteric fossa but not the piriform fossa was the standard entry point. Secondly, in 3.85% of the cases a shape with a free entry point was found, whereas 76.15% of the specimens were defined by a laterally projecting spine. In 20.00% cases the entry points was partially covered. Thirdly, the means of the vertical and horizontal widths of the piriformis tendon were (6.74±1.21)mm and(4.29±1.37)mm, respectively. The means of the vertical and horizontal widths of the obturator internus tendon were (6.36±1.74)mm and(5.74±1.61)mm, respectively. The means of the vertical and horizontal widths of the obturator external tendon were (6.26±1.13) mm and(4.57±1.26)mm, respectively. Fourthly, the mean distances of the anterior and posterior edges of the piriformis tendon attachment from the posterior limit of the greater trochanter, defined as a percentage of the anteroposterior length of the greater trochanter in this study, were(57.9±8.8)% and(43.8±8.7)%, respectively. Equivalent mean distances for the obturator internus attachment were (65.6±7.3)%and (52.6±6.9)%, respectively. Conclusion Piriform fossa should be named as Trochanteric fossa. Because of the various relationships between the trochanteric fossa and the greater trochanter, the entry point is variable, and the trochanteric fossa can not be considered as a general entry point. Quantitative data about tendons is helpful to optimize surgical approaches.

导出引用

张振华夏丹豪沈建明王永奎徐高磊. 髓内钉手术进针点的探讨——股骨近端解剖学测量[J]. 解剖学报. 2017, 48(3): 322-326 https://doi.org/10.16098/j.issn.0529-1356.2017.03.012

ZHANG Zhen-hua XIA Dan-hao SHEN Jian-ming WANG Yong-kui XU Gao-lei. Anatomy of the proximal femur for intramedullary femoral nailing[J]. Acta Anatomica Sinica. 2017, 48(3): 322-326 https://doi.org/10.16098/j.issn.0529-1356.2017.03.012

参考文献

［1］Moein CMA, Verhofstad MHJ, Bleys RLAW, et al. Soft tissue anatomy around the hip and its implications for choice of entry point in antegrade femoral nailing［J］. Clin Anat, 2008, 21(6):568-574.

［2］Kale SP, Patil N, Pilankar S, et al. Correct anatomical location of entry point for antegrade femoral nailing［J］. Injury, 2006, 37(10):990-993.

［3］Moein CMSA, Gerrits PD, Duis HJT. Trochanteric fossa or piriform fossa of the femur: Time for standardised terminology ［J］ ? Injury, 2013, 44(6):722-725.

［4］Tamaki T, Nimura A, Oinuma K, et al. An anatomic study of the impressions on the greater trochanter: bony geometry indicates the alignment of the short external rotator muscles［J］. J Arthroplasty, 2013, 29(12):2473-2477.

［5］Grechenig W, Pichler W, Clement H, et al. Anatomy of the greater femoral trochanter: clinical importance for intramedullary femoral nailing. Anatomic study of 100 cadaver specimens［J］. Acta Orthop, 2006, 77(6):899-901.

［6］Farhang K, Desai R, Wilber JH, et al. An anatomical study of the entry point in the greater trochanter for intramedullary nailing［J］. Bone Joint J, 2014, 96-B(9):1274-1281.

［7］Ito Y, Matsushita I, Watanabe H, et al. Anatomic mapping of short external rotators shows the limit of their preservation during total hip arthroplasty［J］. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(6):1690-1695.

［8］Papadakis SA, Shepherd L, Babourda EC, et al. Piriform and trochanteric fossae. A drawing mismatch or a terminology error? A review［J］. Surg Radiol Anat, 2005, 27(3):223-226.［9］Gray H, Standring S, Borley NR, et al. Gray’s anatomy : the anatomical basis of clinical practice［J］. Current Anaesthesia and Critical Care, 2004, 21(4):211-214.

［10］Ricci WM, Derinney S, Haidukewych G, et al. Trochanteric nail insertion for the treatment of femoral ahaft fractures［J］. J Orthop Trauma, 2005, 19(8):511-517.

［11］Lang MJ, Wachsmuth MW, Regio femoris. In: Lang J, Wachsmuth W, eds. der Oberschenkel［M］. Berlin: Bein Und Statik, Springer-Verlag, 1972: 190-214.

［12］Hansen ST, Winquist RA. Closed intramedullary nailing of the femur. Kuntscher technique with reaming［J］. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1979, 138(138):56-61.

［13］RA Winquist, ST Hansen, DK Clawson. Closed intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. A report of 520 cases［J］. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1984, 66(4):529-539.

［14］Miller SD, Burkart B, Damson E, et al. The effect of the entry hole for an intramedullary nail on the strength of the proximal femur［J］. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1993, 75(2):202-206.［15］Linke B, Ansari MC, Bsl O, et al. Lateral insertion points in antegrade femoral nailing and their influence on femoral bone strains［J］. J Orthop Trauma, 2008, 22(10):716-722.

［16］Ansari MC, ten Duis HJ, Oey L, et al. Functional outcome after antegrade femoral nailing: a comparison of trochanteric fossa versus tip of greater trochanter entry point.［J］. J Orthop Trauma, 2011, 25(4):196-201.

［17］Moein CMA, Duis HJT, Oey PL, et al. Intramedullary femoral nailing through the trochanteric fossa versus greater trochanter tip : a randomized controlled study with in-depth functional outcome results［J］. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2011, 37(6):615-622.

［18］Georgiadis GM, Olexa TA, Ebraheim NA. Entry sites for antegrade femoral nailing［J］. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1996, (330):281-287.

［19］Gardner MJ, Robertson WJ, Boraiah S, et al. Anatomy of the greater trochanteric ‘bald spot’: a potential portal for abductor sparing femoral nailing ［J］? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2008, 466(9):2196-2200.

［20］Philippon MJ, Michalski MP, Campbell KJ, et al. Surgically relevant bony and soft tissue anatomy of the proximal femur［J］. Orthop J Sports Med, 2014, 2(6)：2325967114535188.

［21］Tamaki T, Nimura A, Oinuma K, et al. An anatomic study of the impressions on the greater trochanter: bony geometry indicates the alignment of the short external rotator muscles［J］. J Arthroplasty, 2013, 29(12):2473-2477.

［22］Pine J, Binns M, Wright P, et al. Piriformis and obturator internus morphology: A cadaveric study［J］. Clin Anat, 2011, 24(1):70-76.

［23］Roche JJ, Jones CD, Khan RJ, et al. The surgical anatomy of the piriformis tendon, with particular reference to total hip replacement: a cadaver study［J］. Bone Joint J, 2013, 95-B(6):764-769.