ANATOMICAL FEATURES OF THE SOFT TISSUE STRUCTURES OF THE PROXIMAL HUMERAL DIAPHYSIS REVEALED BY THE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Kononenko S.V., Pelypenko О.V.

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE

Scentific article

Treatment of humeral diaphysis fractures requires in-depth knowledge of the variant anatomy of the muscular component and other soft tissue structures. The analysis of the findings of magnetic resonance imaging enables the study of the anatomical features without the use of cadaveric material. The aim of the study is to determine the anatomical features of the soft tissue structures of the proximal humeral diaphysis based on the findings of magnetic resonance imaging. Methods and Material. 73 consecutive standard MRI scans of the humerus of patients aged 17 to 72 years have been analyzed. The average age of the patients was 48 years; the average age of women and men was 49 and 47 years, respectively. Methods of nonparametric statistics have been used in data processing. Results. After studying and processing the data, three groups of patients were identified depending on the age and gender. Individual anthropometric parameters of deltoid muscle, greater pectoral muscle, teres major muscle and the broadest muscle of the back have been determined, namely, the width, thickness, and distance from the apex of the greater tubercle to the upper boundary of the insertion site on the humeral diaphysis. Age and gender differences in anthropometric data have been differentiated. The examination of the greater pectoral muscle revealed a clear laminarity of the muscle portions and the retrograde nature of the points of its attachment to the humeral diaphysis relative to their sites of origin. Teres major muscle, in all subjects, had a single-vector fiber structure. The site of insertion of the teres major muscle, in all subjects, was below the site of attachment of the broadest muscle of the back to the humerus. Conclusions. Elderly women, as compared to men of this age group and young and middle-aged women, have a dramatic decreasein anthropometric biofunctional parameters of the deltoid muscle, greater pectoral muscle, teres major muscle and the broadest muscle of back. This phenomenon indicates the clear age and gender distribution of bone fragment displacement in humeral diaphysis fractures.

magnetic resonance imaging, muscle component, humeral diaphysis, soft tissue structures.

1. Hohenberger GM, Lipnik G, Schwarz AM, Grechenig P, Holter M, Weiglein AH. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of the humeral shaft with regard to adjacent anatomical characteristics. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):279. DOI: 10.1038/s41598–021–04041-w.
2. Cañada-Oya H, Cañada-Oya S, Zarzuela-Jiménez C, Delgado-Martinez AD. New, minimally invasive, anteromedial-distal approach for plate osteosynthesis of distal-third humeral shaft fractures: An anatomical study: An anatomical study. JB JS Open Access. 2020;5(1): e0056. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.19.00056.
3. Shon H-C, Yang JY, Lee Y, Cho J-W, Oh J-K, Lim EJ. Iatrogenic radial nerve palsy in the surgical treatment of humerus shaft fracture -anterolateral versus posterior approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Sci. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j. jos.2021.09.015.
4. Hendrickx LAM, Hilgersom NFJ, Alkaduhimi H, Doornberg JN, van den Bekerom MPJ. Radial nerve palsy associated with closed humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review of 1758 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141(4):561–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00402–020–03446-y.
5. Latef TJ, Bilal M, Vetter M, Iwanaga J, Oskouian RJ, Tubbs RS. Injury of the radial nerve in the arm: A review. Cureus. 2018 Feb 16;10(2): e2199. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.2199.
6. Da Silva T, Rummel F, Knop C, Merkle T. Comparing iatrogenic radial nerve lesions in humeral shaft fractures treated with helical or straight PHILOS plates: a 10-year retrospective cohort study of 62 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020;140(12):1931–7. DOI: 10.1007/s00402–020–03438-y.
7. Kononenko SV, Pelypenko OV. Biomehanichni osoblivosti skalkovih perelomiv diafisu plechovoi kistki. Act Probl Suchasnoi Medecini. 2021;21(1):26–9. DOI: 10.31718/2077–1096.21.1.26. [in Ukrainian].
8. Haładaj R, Wysiadecki G, Clarke E, Polguj M, Topol M. Anatomical variations of the pectoralis major muscle: Notes on their impact on pectoral nerve innervation patterns and discussion on their clinical relevance. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:6212039. DOI: 10.1155/2019/6212039.
9. Larionov A, Yotovski P, Link K, Filgueira L. Innervation of the clavicular part of the deltoid muscle by the lateral pectoral nerve. Clin Anat. 2020;33(8):1152–8. DOI: 10.1002/ca.23555.
10. Jagiasi JD, Valavi AS, Ubale TV, Sahu D. Insertion anatomy of the pectoralis major tendon. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019;10(3):541–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.01.005.
11. Colak C, Bullen JA, Entezari V, Forney M, Ilaslan H. Magnetic resonance imaging of deltoid muscle/tendon tears: a descriptive study. Skeletal Radiol. 2021;50(10):1995–2003. DOI: 10.1007/s00256–021–03727–6.
12. Henninger HB, Christensen GV, Taylor CE, Kawakami J, Hillyard BS, Tashjian RZ, et al. The muscle cross-sectional area on MRI of the shoulder can predict muscle volume: An MRI study in cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478(4):871–83. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001044.
13. Kälin PS, Crawford RJ, Marcon M, Manoliu A, Bouaicha S, Fischer MA, et al. Shoulder muscle volume and fat content in healthy adult volunteers: quantification with DIXON MRI to determine the influence of demographics and handedness. Skeletal Radiol. 2018;47(10):1393–402. DOI: 10.1007/s00256–018–2945–1.
14. Arnet U, de Vries WH, Eriks-Hoogland I, Wisianowsky C, van der Woude LHV, Veeger DHEJ, et al. MRI evaluation of shoulder pathologies in wheelchair users with spinal cord injury and the relation to shoulder pain. J Spinal Cord Med. 2021. DOI: 10.1080/10790268.2021.1881238.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 2 Part 1 (164), 2022 year, 184-189 pages, index UDK 611.97–071–072

10.29254/2077-4214-2022-2-1-164-184-189