Morphological Features of the Ulnar Collateral Ligament of the Elbow and Common Tendon of Flexor-Pronator Muscles.
anatomy
baseball
elbow
ulnar collateral ligament injury
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
30
03
2020
accepted:
14
04
2020
entrez:
5
10
2020
pubmed:
6
10
2020
medline:
6
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The anterior bundle (AB) of the ulnar collateral ligament is the most important structure for valgus stabilization of the elbow. However, anatomic relationships among the AB, posterior bundle (PB) of the ulnar collateral ligament, and common tendon (CT) of the flexor-pronator muscles have not been fully clarified. To classify the AB, PB, and CT and to clarify their morphological features. Descriptive laboratory study. This investigation examined 56 arms from 31 embalmed Japanese cadavers. The CT investigation examined 34 arms from 23 embalmed Japanese cadavers with CTs remaining. Type classification was performed by focusing on positional relationships with surrounding structures. Morphological features measured were length, width, thickness, and footprint for the AB and PB and attachment length, thickness, and footprint for the CT. The AB was classified as type I (44 elbows; 78.6%), can be separated as a single bundle, or type II (12 elbows; 21.4%), cannot be separated from the PB and joint capsule. The PB was classified as type I (28 elbows; 50.0%), can be separated as a single bundle; type IIa (6 elbows; 10.7%), posterior edge cannot be separated; type IIb (7 elbows; 12.5%), anterior edge cannot be separated; or type III (15 elbows; 26.8%), cannot be separated from the joint capsule. The CT was classified as type I (18 elbows; 52.9%), can be separated from the AB, or type II (16 elbows; 47.1%), cannot be separated from the AB. Significant differences in frequencies of AB, PB, and CT types were identified between men and women. Morphological features were measured only for type I of each structure, and reliability was almost perfect. These results suggest that the AB, PB, and CT each can be classified into an independent form and an unclear form. Presence of the unclear form was suggested as one factor contributing to morphological variation. This study may provide basic information for clarifying functional roles of the AB, PB, and CT.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The anterior bundle (AB) of the ulnar collateral ligament is the most important structure for valgus stabilization of the elbow. However, anatomic relationships among the AB, posterior bundle (PB) of the ulnar collateral ligament, and common tendon (CT) of the flexor-pronator muscles have not been fully clarified.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To classify the AB, PB, and CT and to clarify their morphological features.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Descriptive laboratory study.
METHODS
METHODS
This investigation examined 56 arms from 31 embalmed Japanese cadavers. The CT investigation examined 34 arms from 23 embalmed Japanese cadavers with CTs remaining. Type classification was performed by focusing on positional relationships with surrounding structures. Morphological features measured were length, width, thickness, and footprint for the AB and PB and attachment length, thickness, and footprint for the CT.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The AB was classified as type I (44 elbows; 78.6%), can be separated as a single bundle, or type II (12 elbows; 21.4%), cannot be separated from the PB and joint capsule. The PB was classified as type I (28 elbows; 50.0%), can be separated as a single bundle; type IIa (6 elbows; 10.7%), posterior edge cannot be separated; type IIb (7 elbows; 12.5%), anterior edge cannot be separated; or type III (15 elbows; 26.8%), cannot be separated from the joint capsule. The CT was classified as type I (18 elbows; 52.9%), can be separated from the AB, or type II (16 elbows; 47.1%), cannot be separated from the AB. Significant differences in frequencies of AB, PB, and CT types were identified between men and women. Morphological features were measured only for type I of each structure, and reliability was almost perfect.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that the AB, PB, and CT each can be classified into an independent form and an unclear form. Presence of the unclear form was suggested as one factor contributing to morphological variation.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
CONCLUSIONS
This study may provide basic information for clarifying functional roles of the AB, PB, and CT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33015213
doi: 10.1177/2325967120952415
pii: 10.1177_2325967120952415
pmc: PMC7509733
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2325967120952415Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This study was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI grant No. JP19K11358 and a grant-in-aid program from Niigata University of Health and Welfare. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
Am J Sports Med. 2009 May;37(5):974-81
pubmed: 19270190
Surg Radiol Anat. 2019 Jan;41(1):69-73
pubmed: 30402712
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015 Oct;25(5):e497-503
pubmed: 25557958
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Mar;46(3):687-694
pubmed: 29266961
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995 Nov;(320):154-8
pubmed: 7586820
Surg Radiol Anat. 2019 May;41(5):595-599
pubmed: 30617509
Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2005;47(1):47-52
pubmed: 16152772
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Mar;37(3):588-98
pubmed: 19174550
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998 Jul-Aug;7(4):345-51
pubmed: 9752642
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985 Dec;(201):84-90
pubmed: 4064425
Ann Anat. 2016 Mar;204:80-5
pubmed: 26704354
J Anat. 2000 Oct;197 Pt 3:507-11
pubmed: 11117635
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991 Oct;(271):170-9
pubmed: 1914292
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Sep-Oct;16(5):657-60
pubmed: 17583541
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Aug;45(10):2319-2328
pubmed: 28575638
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Mar 26;6(3):2325967118762751
pubmed: 29637082
Am J Sports Med. 1995 Mar-Apr;23(2):245-50
pubmed: 7778713
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Mar;(396):100-5
pubmed: 11859231
Surg Radiol Anat. 2014 Apr;36(3):289-94
pubmed: 23884470
Cardiopulm Phys Ther J. 2013 Sep;24(3):21-9
pubmed: 23997688
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Jan-Feb;8(1):6-10
pubmed: 10077788
Am J Sports Med. 1994 Sep-Oct;22(5):667-73
pubmed: 7810791
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Sep;39(9):1936-41
pubmed: 21555509
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008 Feb;23(2):193-202
pubmed: 17997206
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Aug;28(8):1497-1504
pubmed: 31028010
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Feb;24(2):265-72
pubmed: 25577730
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Oct;68(8):1158-63
pubmed: 3771597
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Sep;87(9):2065-74
pubmed: 16140822
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Mar;42(3):544-51
pubmed: 24473498
Am J Sports Med. 2019 Dec;47(14):3491-3497
pubmed: 31647881
J Ultrasound Med. 2014 Aug;33(8):1485-90
pubmed: 25063414
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Jul;24(7):2319-23
pubmed: 25533700
Clin Anat. 2019 Apr;32(3):379-389
pubmed: 30521139
J Anat. 1991 Apr;175:203-12
pubmed: 2050566
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2007 Mar;16(2):144-9
pubmed: 17273043
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571