4.3 Article

Teres major muscle - insertion footprint

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANATOMY
卷 230, 期 5, 页码 631-638

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/joa.12593

关键词

axillary nerve; bicipital groove; crest of the lesser tubercle; latissimus dorsi muscle; radial nerve; teres major muscle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Teres major muscle (TM) and latissimus dorsi muscle (LD) are frequently used in muscle transfers around the shoulder girdle. Some authors have suggested harvesting techniques in which the muscle is detached in continuity with a bone segment. Information on the bony attachment footprint of these muscles is lacking. The purpose of this study was to investigate the region of attachment of the TM to facilitate safe and complete harvesting with a bone segment where it is indicated, and to determine the relationship of the TM footprint with that of the LD. Twenty-eight upper extremities of 14 human cadavers (six female, eight male) were investigated during the students' dissection course in the winter term 2012. The attachment footprints were photographed and the images were processed with ImageJ Version 1.46r. The TM attachment footprint at the crest of the lesser tubercle had an average dimension of 187 +/- 89mm(2). It was 49.6 +/- 7.9mm long and 7.4 +/- 2.5mm wide. The bony attachment of the LD within the bicipital groove, just below the tendon of the long head of the biceps muscle, had an area of 94 +/- 37mm(2). It was 36.5 +/- 8mm long and 3.7 +/- 1.2mm wide. Both muscles were separated by 4.4 +/- 1.7mm and their attachments overlapped in the craniocaudal direction by 24.4 +/- 12.4mm. Earlier studies have investigated the dimensions of the muscles' tendons close to the attachment not the bony attachment itself. The dimension of the attachment of the TM was larger than that of the LD. The ratio between the footprint areas was approximately 2:1. This information should be considered by surgeons undertaking transfers, which include a bony segment of the muscle insertion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据