Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the average of the morphometric parameters of the scapula to accurate and successful analyzes in the clinic.
Materials and Methods: A total of 24 dry bone scapula, 8 left and 16 right, were included in the study. Parameters determined on the scapula; scapula superio-inferior glenoid diameter (SIGD), anterio-posterior glenoid diameter 1 (APG1), anterio-posterior glenoid diameter 2 (APG2), anterio-posterior glenoid diameter 3 (APG3), scapula width (SW), scapula length (SL), basis-spina distance (BS), spina scapula width (SSW), acromiocoracoid width (AW), scapula margo lateralis length (SML), scapula margo medialis length 1 (SML 1), scapula margo medialis length 2 (SML 2), scapula margo medialis length 3 (SML 3), scapula maximum width (MSW), cavitas glenoidalis antero-posterior width (CGAPW), cavitas glenoidalis superio-inferior width (CGSIW), incisura scapula width (ISW), incisura scapula depth (ISD), the maximum length of proccessus coracoideus (MLPC), maximum proccessus coracoideus thickness (MPCK), the shortest distance between the lateral edge of the proccessus coracoideus tip and the anterior upper edge of the cavitas glenoidalis (PCL-CGK). In addition, scapular index (SI), infraspinate index (ISI), and glenoid index (GI) values were calculated and classified by evaluating the cavitas glenoidalis (CGS), coracoglenoid area (CAS), and incisura scapula shape (ISS).
Results: The mean of the determined parameters; SIGD; 3.79±0.31, APG1; 2.47±0.27, APG2; 2.01±0.31, APG3; 2.94±0.55, SW; 10.35±0.84, SL; 15.02±1.17, BS; 7.26±0.82, SSW; 14.4±1.22, AW; 6.18±0.92, SML; 13.43±0.93, SML1; 5.01±0.51, SML2; 11.06±1.1, SML3; 10.15±0.71, MSW; 15,4±1,05, CGAPW; 2.62±0.26, CGSIW; 3.77±0.3, ISW; 8.84±2.18, ISD; 5.25±1.69, MLPC; 44.67±3.23, MPCK;10.06±1.93, PCL-CGK;14.6±1.49. Also SI; 65.8±4.07, ISI; 203.86±18.4, GI; It was calculated as 69.74±5.8. SCG; 87.5% pear type, 8.3% oval type and 4.16% inverted comma type, SCA; 33.3% round shaped, 57.14% square shaped, 9.52% hook shaped, SIS; It is classified as 12.5% type 1, 16.6% type 2, 37.5% type 3 and 33.3% type 4.
Conclusion: It is thought that the results of the analysis of the parameters determined in the study will add clinical depth to many surgical approaches such as glenohumeral arthrodesis, internal fixation, fracture stabilization, and rotator cuff tendinitis, in more accurate analysis of shoulder anomalies and fractures.