Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

M. SOLEUS’TA AKSESUAR KEMİK VEYA MYOSİTİS OSSIFICANS?

ACCESSORY BONE OR MYOSITIS OSSIFICANS IN SOLEUS MUSCLE?

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2009

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
During routine dissections at the Anatomy Department of the Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, the authors encountered a bony structure in the right soleus muscle of a 78 year old male cadaver. The bony structure was not associated with any bones or capsular or ligamentous structures. In order to prove that this structure was a real bone but not a bony segment that was broken from the bones of the leg, first we took a radiograph of this region. In the radiograph, there was no evidence for broken leg bones. Moreover the bony structure had plainly normal trabecular bony scene. Secondly we took out this structure, then a propriate section from it was made and it was examined microscopically. As mature bony lamellae were observed microscopically, at last we felt certain that this was a real bone. There were two possibilities for this unusual structure. It could be an accessory bone that was stated in the soleus muscle like the fabella that can be stated in the gastrocnemius muscle or this cadaver had had myositis ossificans at this region. Certain discrimination could not be made despite macroscopic, microscopic or radiographic examinations. As myositis ossificans hasn’t been reported in cadavers yet, we believe that the case we report may be useful for distinctive diagnosis of the bony structures determined in soft tissues in Anatomic studies.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Ġstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Anatomi Anabilim Dalı’ndaki rutin disseksiyonlar sırasında, 78 yaĢındaki bir erkek kadavranın sağ m. soleus’unda kemiksi bir yapı ile karĢılaĢıldı. Bu kemiksi yapının hiçbir kemik, kapsüler ya da ligamentöz yapı ile iliĢkisi yoktu. Bu yapının gerçek bir kemik olduğunu ve bacağın kemiklerinden kopan bir kemik segment olmadığını ispatlamak için bu bölgenin radyografisi çekildi. Radyografide bacak kemiklerinin kırılmıĢ olduğuna dair bir bulguya rastlanmadı. Ayrıca bu kemik yapıda normal trabeküler kemik görüntüsü saptandı. Ġkinci olarak bu yapı çıkarılarak, uygun bir kesiti alınarak mikroskopik olarak incelendi. Mikroskopik olarak matür kemik lamelleri gözlendiği için, bu yapının gerçek bir kemik olduğundan emin olundu. Bu alıĢılmadık yapı için iki olasılık vardı. M. gastrocnemius’ta bulunabilen fabella gibi bir aksesuar kemiğin m. soleus’ta bulunması veya bu kadavrada yaĢarken bu bölgede bir myositis ossificans geliĢmiĢ olmasıydı. Kesin ayırıcı tanı makroskopik, mikroskopik veya radyografik tetkiklere rağmen yapılamadı. Bugüne kadar kadavralarda bildirilmiĢ olan myositis ossificans vakasına literatürde rastlamadığımız için, bildirdiğimiz olgunun, Anatomik çalıĢmalar sırasında yumuĢak dokularda saptanan kemik kitlelerin ayırıcı tanısı açısından yararlı olacağı düĢüncesindeyiz.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-m.soleusta-aksesuar-kemik-myositis-ossificans.pdf
  • 4
127-130
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Akansel G, Ġnan N, Sarisoy HT, Anik Y, Akansel S. Popliteus muscle sesamoid bone (cyamella): Appearance on radiographs, CT and MRI. Medical Imaging. 2006; 28: 642-645.
2. Angervall L, Stener B, Stener I, Ahren C. Pseudomalignant osseous tumour of soft tissue A clinical, radiological and pathological study of five cases. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 1969; 51 B: 654-663.
3. Beiner J, Jokl P. Muscle contusion injury and myositis ossificans traumatica. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2002; 403: 110-119.
4. Champagne IM, Cook DL, Kestner SC, Pontisso JA, Siesel KJ. Os subfibulare. Investigation of an accessory bone. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association. 1999; 89: 520-524.
5. Cıllı F, Akcaoğlu M. The incidence of accessory bones of the foot and their clinical significance. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. 2005; 39: 243-246.
6. Hanna SL, Magill HL, Brooks MT, Burton EM, Boulden TF, Seidel FG. Cases of the day Pediatric. Radiographics. 1990; 10: 945-949.
7. Hendifar AE, Johnson D, Arkfeld DG. Myositis ossificans: A case Report. Arthritis & Rheumatism (Arthritis Care & Research). 2005; 53: 793-795.
8. Jacobsen S. Traumatic myositis ossificans. Posttraumatic nonneoplastic heterotopic ossification. Ugeskr Laeger. 1995; 157: 5385-5388.
9. Jarvinen TAH, Jarvinen TLN, Kaariainen M, Aarimaa V, Vaittinen S, Kalimo H, Jarvinen M. Muscle injuries: optimising recovery. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2007; 21: 317-331.
10. Kransdorf MJ, Meis JM, Jelinek JS. Myositis ossificans: MR appearance with radiologic-pathologic correlation. AJR. 1991; 157: 1243-1248.
11. Le Minor. Comparative anatomy and significance of the sesamoid bone of the peroneus longus muscle (os peroneum). J Anat. 1987; 151: 85-99.
12. Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Fornasier VL. Pseudomalignant myositis ossificans: heterotopic new-bone formation without a history of trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;
Ġstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt / Volume: 72 • Sayı / Number: 4 • Yıl/Year: 2009
130
M.Soleus’ta alıĢılmadık kitle
62: 1274-1283.
13. Rajapakse BN, Kiddle G. Calcifying haematoma mimicking a soft tissue sarcoma and myositis ossificans. ANZ J. Surg. 2006, 76: 1027-1029.
14. Standring S. (ed) Gray’s Anatomy. Thirty-ninth edition. Spain: Churchill Livingstone. 2005; P: 1523
15. Tsuruta T, ShiokawaY, Kato A, Matsumoto T, Yamazoe Y, Oike T, Sugiyama T, Saito M. Radiological study of the accessory skeletal elements in the foot and ankle. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi. 1981; 55: 357-370.
16. Verhoef C, Wilt JHW, Bakker MA. Giant Myositis Ossificans of the Leg. International Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2007; 15: 170-171.
17. Zeanah WR, Hudson TM. Myositis ossificans Radiologic evaluation of two cases with diagnostic computed tomograms. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1982; 168: 187-191.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com