SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.33 número3Prevalencia de Patela Bipartita en una Población Turca: Análisis de Radiografías Bilaterales de Rodilla en 897 SujetosAlteraciones de las Neuronas Piramidales Gigantes de la Corteza Cerebral en Crías de Ratas Nacidas de Hembras con Diabetes Gestacional: Un Estudio Morfométrico índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


International Journal of Morphology

versión On-line ISSN 0717-9502

Resumen

MENEZES, Tamires Meira et al. Proximal Femoral Epiphysis: Manual Morphometry versus Digital Morphometry. Int. J. Morphol. [online]. 2015, vol.33, n.3, pp.1114-1119. ISSN 0717-9502.  http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022015000300048.

It is important and necessary to know the morphometric characteristics of the proximal femur in order to reduce the risk of complications associated with surgical procedures performed in the area due to vascular, metabolic or trauma causes, and to achieve an alignment of prosthesis to be implanted. The morphometric analysis has proved possible to be used, and can be a valid help to obtain certain parameters that may contribute to scientific research in several areas. For this, a good understanding of evaluation techniques and principles that can be applied to obtain reliable and valid results is needed. To measure the proximal femoral epiphysis by manual morphometry, with the aid of the caliper, and digital morphometry, with the aid of software and compare them. Twenty nine femurs were used to measure the following parameters: diameter of the femoral head in the cranio caudal axis (DFH­CC) and sagittal axis (DFH­S), diameter of the femoral neck cranio caudal axis (DFN­CC) and sagittal axis (DFN­S), length of the femoral neck (LFN) and length of the intertrochanteric line (LIL). After the measurements, the mean values were compared between the two morphometric techniques. The manual morphometry obtained the following average values: DFH­CC 4.42±0.44, DFH­S 4.38±0.47; DFN­CC 3.10±0.35; DFN­S 2.50±0.37; LFN 2.55±0.42; LIL 4.79±0.62. While the values obtained by digital morphometry were: DFH­CC 3.09±0.41, DFH­S 3.35±0.40; DFN­CC 1.79±0.26; DFN­S 2.26±0.23; LFN 1.42±0.33; LIL 3.33±0.54. All parameters measured from the manual technique showed values significantly higher (p<0.05) than values obtained by digital morphometry. This study showed that there is no morphometry gold standard. Different morphometric methods can effectively reproduce, the values of morphometric anatomical structures, depending on the purpose of the study, the anatomical structures and experience of the researcher.

Palabras clave : Proximal femoral epiphysis; Morphometry; Anatomy.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Inglés     · Inglés ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons