PLoS ONE plos plosone PLOS ONE 1932-6203 Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA 10.1371/journal.pone.0307387 PONE-D-23-34676 Research Article Biology and life sciencesAnatomyBody limbsLegsAnkles Medicine and health sciencesAnatomyBody limbsLegsAnkles Biology and life sciencesAnatomyMusculoskeletal systemSkeletonTibia Medicine and health sciencesAnatomyMusculoskeletal systemSkeletonTibia Research and analysis methodsImaging techniquesNeuroimagingComputed axial tomography Biology and life sciencesNeuroscienceNeuroimagingComputed axial tomography Medicine and health sciencesDiagnostic medicineDiagnostic radiologyTomographyComputed axial tomography Research and analysis methodsImaging techniquesDiagnostic radiologyTomographyComputed axial tomography Medicine and health sciencesRadiology and imagingDiagnostic radiologyTomographyComputed axial tomography Research and analysis methodsImaging techniquesMorphometry Medicine and health sciencesDiagnostic medicineDiagnostic radiologyMagnetic resonance imaging Research and analysis methodsImaging techniquesDiagnostic radiologyMagnetic resonance imaging Medicine and health sciencesRadiology and imagingDiagnostic radiologyMagnetic resonance imaging Biology and life sciencesAnatomyMusculoskeletal systemSkeletonSkeletal jointsAnkle joints Medicine and health sciencesAnatomyMusculoskeletal systemSkeletonSkeletal jointsAnkle joints Biology and life sciencesAnatomyMusculoskeletal systemSkeletonFibula Medicine and health sciencesAnatomyMusculoskeletal systemSkeletonFibula Biology and life sciencesAnatomyMusculoskeletal systemSkeletonSkeletal joints Medicine and health sciencesAnatomyMusculoskeletal systemSkeletonSkeletal joints Fibular notch morphometry and its clinical importance on dry bones Fibular notch morphometry https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1521-5437 Kilic Safak Nazire Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft * Department of Anatomy, Cukurova University Faculty of Medicine, Adana, Turkey Karauda Piotr Editor Medical University of Lodz: Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lodzi, POLAND

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

 * E-mail: nazirekilic84@gmail.com 13 8 2024 2024 19 8 e0307387 5 11 2023 28 6 2024 2024 Nazire Kilic Safak This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

The aim of the present study was to determine the morphometric characteristics of the fibular notch (FN). This study was carried out with 76 dry adult tibial bone specimens (right 38, left 38) with unknown age and sex collected from the Department of Anatomy, Cukurova University, Adana. The mean width of the FN was 23.04 ± 2.02 mm; the mean depth of the FN 3.63 ± 0.83 mm; the mean height of the FN was 41.76 ± 4.01 mm. The mean anterior facet length and posterior facet length was found to be 10.44 ± 1.94 mm and 13.93 ±1.63 mm, respectively. The mean value of the angle between the anterior and posterior facets was found to be 140.56° ± 11.72. The mean value of the angle between the anterior surface of the tibia and the intertubercular line was 75.5° ± 5.47. No statistically significant differences were detected between the right and left sides for all measurements. It is considered that knowing the morphometric and anatomical characteristics of the fibular notch in detail will help radiologists evaluate the talocrural region. It is also considered that these data will guide surgeons and help determine the appropriate size for ankle reconstruction operations.

 The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data Availability All information about this data can be obtained via the corresponding author. Introduction

The interosseous edge of the tibia is sharp and forms an attachment point for the interosseous membrane, which connects the leg bones. This sharp edge turns into a groove called “fibular notch” toward the lower end of the tibia. The fibular notch (FN) provides a fibrous attachment area where the distal end of the fibula is located [1]. For the ankle joint to function properly, this relationship between the distal end of the tibia and fibula is extremely important [2]. Ankle joint dislocations and fractures are quite common. Knowing the syndesmosis joint structure here is important in terms of treatment and prognosis. However, obtaining radiological findings on injuries in the area is very difficult because of rotational differences, shape differences, and variations [3]. The ankle joint is among the most injured joints [4]. Although the movement of the tibiofibular joint is quite limited, it has a significant effect on stabilizing ankle movements. Fibular notch morphological features are associated with displacement in the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis and ankle sprains [5]. In cases of ankle injuries, it is important to place the fibula correctly at the fibular notch to maintain the stability of the talus at the tibiofibular joint or ankle mortise [6]. It is very important to have a comprehensive knowledge of the morphometric characteristics of the fibular notch to stabilize the joint, make an accurate diagnosis, and ensure success in operations that may be performed in the area [2]. Additonally, fibular notch approach is a safe and reliable method preferred for surgeries of the ankle. It is extremely important to know the anatomy of the region to determine the feasibility of this approach and comprehensive anatomical studies are still needed in literature [7]. Fibular notch measurements are important for assessing most appropriate position of the distal fibula in fibular notch for ankle stability. In accordance with this purpose, the aim of the present study was to determine the morphometric characteristics of the fibular notch.

 Materials and methods

This study was carried out with 76 dry adult tibial bone specimens (right 38, left 38) with unknown age and sex collected from the Department of Anatomy, Cukurova University, Adana. All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations. The ethical approval was obtained from the Cukurova University Faculty of Medicine Non-Interventional Clinical Research Institutional Ethics Committee (2023, 133). Samples were accessed in August and September 2023 for research purposes. Damaged and deformed bones were excluded from this study. All measurements were taken twice by the same researcher and mean values were recorded (NKS).

Images were taken with Canon 50D Digital Camera from a distance of 70 cm after illuminating with artificial light by using a reference scale of fixed length (10 mm). The measurements were made by using ImageJ Software (https://imagej.net/ij/) after the images were transferred to the computer. This program uses real world measurement units such as millimeters.

The following parameters were measured:

Fibular Notch Width (FNW): The distance between the anterior and posterior tubercles of the fibular notch is measured from the widest part.

Fibular Notch Depth (FND): It is measured from the deepest point, perpendicularly to a line between the anterior and posterior tubercles of the fibular notch.

Fibular Notch Height (FNH): The distance between the highest point of the tibial plafond and the highest point of the fibular notch is measured.

Anterior Facet Length (AFL): The distance between the tuberculum anterior of the tibia and the deepest point of the fibular notch is measured.

Posterior Facet Length (PFL): The distance between the tuberculum posterior of the tibia and the deepest point of the fibular notch is measured.

Angle between Anterior and Posterior Facet (AAPF): The angle between the anterior and posterior facet is measured.

Angle between the Anterior Surface of the Tibia and the Intertubercular Line (AASIL): The angle between the line that passes tangent to the anterior surface of the tibia and the intertubercular line is measured (Figs 1 and 2).

 10.1371/journal.pone.0307387.g001 <p>A) FNW: from a to b; B) FND: Perpendicular distance from c to intertubercular line (a-b); C) AFL: From a to c; PFL: from b to c; AAPF: Angle between a-c and b-c; D) AASIL: Angle between intertubercular line (a-b) and anterior surface tangent line.</p> </caption> <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:href="info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0307387.g001" xlink:type="simple"/> </fig> <fig id="pone.0307387.g002" position="float"> <object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pone.0307387.g002</object-id> <label>Fig 2</label> <caption> <title>Fibular notch height measurement (FNH: from d to e).

The data were analyzed with the IBM SPSS V20. Compliance with normal distribution was examined with the Shapiro-Wilk Test. When right and left side measurements were compared, the comparisons were made with the independent samples t-test because the data followed a normal distribution. The Pearson Correlation Analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between the measurement values and the significance level was taken as p<0.05.

 Results

In the present study, the mean fibular notch width was found to be 23.04 ± 2.02 mm. The mean value was obtained as 22.91 ± 1.79 mm for the right side and 23.18 ± 2.25 mm for the left side. No significant differences were detected between the mean values of fibular notch width in terms of fibular notch width (p = 0.575).

Fibular notch depth was found to be 3.61 ± 0.77 mm, 3.59 ± 0.72 mm, and 3.63 ± 0.83 mm in total, on the right side, and left side, respectively, and no significant differences were detected between the two sides (p = 0.836).

In this study, the mean fibular notch height was found to be 41.76 ± 4.01 mm in total (42.19 ± 3.83 mm for the right side and 41.32 ± 4.19 mm for the left side. No statistically significant differences were detected between the right and left sides in terms of fibular notch height measurements (p = 0.349).

The anterior facet length was found to be 10.43 ± 2 mm on the right side, 10.46 ± 1.91 mm on the left side, and 10.44 ± 1.94 mm in total, and the mean values did not differ in terms of sides (p = 0.946). The posterior facet length was found to be 13.71 ± 1.85 mm for the right side, 14.14 ± 1.52 mm for the left side, and a total of 13.93 ± 1.69 mm. No significant differences were detected between the right and left sides in terms of posterior facet length (p = 0.271).

The mean value of the angle between the anterior and posterior facets was found to be 141.37° ± 12.66, 139.75° ± 10.79, and 140.56° ± 11.72 on the right, left and in total, respectively. The angle between the anterior and posterior facets did not have a significant difference between the right and left sides in terms of mean values (p = 0.55).

The mean value of the angle between the anterior surface of the tibia and the intertubercular line was 76.03° ± 5.27. The mean values of the right and left sides were 74.98° ± 5.68 and 75.5° ± 5.47, respectively, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the two sides (p = 0.408).

An overview of the measurements and side-comparisons in Table 1.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307387.t001 Measurement of the fibular notch.
  Right (n = 38) Left (n = 38) Total (n = 76) p*
FNW (mm) 22.91 ± 1.79 23.18 ± 2.25 23.04 ± 2.02 0.575
FND (mm) 3.59 ± 0.72 3.63 ± 0.83 3.61 ± 0.77 0.836
FNH (mm) 42.19 ± 3.83 41.32 ± 4.19 41.76 ± 4.01 0.349
AFL (mm) 10.43 ± 2 10.46 ± 1.91 10.44 ± 1.94 0.946
PFL (mm) 13.71 ± 1.85 14.14 ± 1.52 13.93 ± 1.69 0.271
AAPF (°) 141.37 ± 12.66 139.75 ± 10.79 140.56 ± 11.72 0.550
AASIL (°) 76.03 ± 5.27 74.98 ± 5.68 75.5 ± 5.47 0.408

*Independent sample t-test; Mean ± standard deviation

(FNW: fibular notch width, FND: fibular notch depth, FNH: fibular notch height, AFL: anterior facet length, PFL: posterior facet length, AAPF: angle between anterior and posterior facet, AASIL: angle between the anterior surface of the tibia and the intertubercular line)

A positive and statistically significant relationship was detected between fibular notch width and anterior and posterior facet length (r = 0.232 and r = 0.428, respectively). There was a significant and negative relationship between fibular notch depth and the angle between the anterior and posterior facets (r = -0.380). A positive and statistically significant relationship was detected between the fibular notch height and posterior facet length (r = 0.270). Likewise, a positive and statistically significant relationship was detected between the posterior facet length and the angle between the anterior and posterior facet (r = 0.230). No statistically significant relationships were detected between other measurements (Table 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0307387.t002 Correlation analysis results between measurements.
1 FNW 2 FND 3 FNL 4 AFL 5 PFL 6 AAPF 7 AASIL
1-FNW ---
2-FND 0.016
3-FNL 0.046 -0.028
4-AFL 0.232 0.184 0.013
5-PFL 0.428 0.023 0.270 0.066
6-AAPF 0.159 -0.380 -0.063 0.147 0.230
7-AASIL 0.121 -0.109 -0.138 -0.201 -0.022 0.133 ---

*Pearson correlation analysis

(FNW: fibular notch width, FND: fibular notch depth, FNH: fibular notch height, AFL: anterior facet length, PFL: posterior facet length, AAPF: angle between anterior and posterior facet, AASIL: angle between the anterior surface of the tibia and the intertubercular line)

 Discussion

The tibiofibular syndesmosis joint is very important for the normal functioning of the ankle [3]. This joint, which is also called the distal tibiofibular joint, is formed between the convex surface on the medial of the fibula and the triangular-shaped fibular notch located on the lateral surface of the distal tibia, creating a settlement for the trochlea of the talus [8]. A total of 13% of ankle fractures are accompanied by tibiofibular syndesmosis injury. The diagnosis of tibiofibular syndesmosis injury is very difficult because of shape variations of the tibial tubercles and anatomical variations of fibular notch depth [9]. Having comprehensive knowledge about distal tibiofibular syndesmosis is very important in the pre- and post-operative evaluations of ankle sprains and fractures [10]. The fibular notch approach is a reliable, successful, and innovative approach in complex distal tibia fractures. More anatomical studies are required to determine the feasibility of this approach [7]. There are measurements in the literature on CT or MRI images, cadavers, and plastination slices [10–12]. The fact that the fibular notch is located more posteriorly with a lower angle is associated with the anterior talofibular ligament injuries [13]. In their study conducted a study on MRI images, Yıldırım et al. argued that all measurements except anterior-posterior facet angle differed according to gender and were higher in men than women [10].

Mavi et al. reported that the fibular notch depth was deeper in individuals with recurrent ankle sprains [14]. Fibular notch depth was reported to be 4.1 ± 1.8 mm in men, 4.1 ± 1.6 mm in women, and 4.1 ± 1.7 mm in the entire population in a study that was conducted by Tonogai et al. on CT images [15]. Yıldırım et al. reported that the fibular notch depth was 3.6 mm for men and 2.9 mm for women in the measurements made on the images obtained with the MRI method [10]. In a study conducted on CT images of cadavers, fibular depth was found to be 4.29 ± 1.26 mm [11]. In their CT-based study, Misir et al. reported that the depth was 3.3 ± 0.9 mm, 3.3 ± 0.9 mm, and 3.0 ± 0.9 mm in the entire population, men and women, respectively [16]. In a study that was conducted on CT images in Asians, the depth was found to be 4.1 ± 0.9 mm on the right and 4.4 ± 1.0 mm on the left, and no differences were detected between two sides [17]. In their study conducted on 20 plastinated male cadavers, Sora et al. reported the mean fibular depth as 5.07 ± 0.76 mm [12]. In their study conducted on dry bones, Musa et al. reported that the fibular notch depth was 3.40 ± 0.96 mm in men and 2.9 ± 0.66 mm in women [18]. In a study conducted on 100 dry tibias in India, it was reported to be 2.85 ± 1.38 mm for the right side and 2.90 ± 1.57 mm for the left side [19]. Also, the results of the study conducted on dry bones in India showed the depth as 1.08 cm and no significant differences were detected between the right and left facets [3]. Shivaji et al. reported that the fibular notch depth was 3.25±032 mm for men and 3±0.25 for women in dry bones [20]. In a study conducted with multi-detector Computed Tomography in China, depth measurements were reported to be 5.1 mm in men and 4.2 mm in women in 3-D images, 5.0 mm in men, and 4.3 mm in women in 2-D axial images [9]. In a study that was conducted on dry bone samples in the Czech Republic, the mean fibular notch depth was reported to be 4.5 ± 1.2 mm [21]. In a retrospective study conducted on CT images of 60 healthy adults in Athens, the fibular notch depth was indicated as 3.92 mm [22]. Taşer et al. reported it as 3.68 ± 1.49 mm in the morphometric evaluations they made on 35 dry adult tibial bone specimens [2]. The fibular depth measurement was found to be similar to the results of Taşer et al in our study. The mean result of the fibular notch depth in the present study was smaller than Czech and Asian population, gerater than Indian and Kenyan population.

Chen et al. reported that the fibular notch height was 35.1 mm in male and 33.7 mm in female in their study conducted with Multi-Detector Computed Tomography [9]. In a study that was conducted on CT images in the Turkish population, fibular notch height was found to be 27.2 ± 2.9 mm in the entire population, 27.8 ± 2.9 mm in men, and 25.4 ± 2.3 mm in women [16]. In a study that was conducted in India by using the direct measurement method on dry bones, the fibular notch height was found to be 38.82 ± 5.58 mm for the right side and 38.72 ± 7.68 mm for the left side [19]. Shivaji et al. reported the height as 31.87 ± 2.01 mm and 29.32 ± 1.5 mm for men and women, respectively [20]. In a study that was conducted by direct measurement on dry bones, the fibular notch height was found to be 31.41 ± 3.66 mm in men and 29.85 ± 2.33 mm in women, and a difference was detected between genders [18]. In measurements that were performed on dry bones in Turkey, fibular notch height was reported to be 29.43 ± 4.07 mm [2]. In a study conducted in the Czech Republic, the mean fibular notch height was reported to be 42.5 ± 5.6 mm in dry bones [21]. When we compare our study result with other studies, the mean value of the fibular notch height in the present study was smaller than Czech population and greater than Indian, Kenyan and Chinese population.

In a previous study that was conducted on the CT images in Korea, the fibular notch width was reported to be 23.8 ± 2.0 mm for the right side and 23.2 ± 2.1 mm for the left side, and no statistically significant differences were detected between two sides [17]. In another study conducted on a cadaver in Austria, it was found that the fibular notch width was 23.76 ± 2.57 mm [12]. The measurements made on dry bones in Kenya revealed that the fibular notch width was 22.2 ± 1.83 mm and 20.52 ± 1.83 mm in men and women, respectively. It was reported in the same study that a significant difference was detected between men and women in terms of fibular notch width [18]. Fojtik et al. reported that the mean fibular notch width was 23.6 ± 2.6 mm in dry bones [21]. In another study that was conducted in India, the fibular notch width was reported to be 2.33 cm, and no differences were detected between the right and left sides [3]. In another study conducted in India, the fibular notch width was found to be 23.94 ± 1.02 mm in men and 20.91 ± 1.14 mm in women [20]. Sreedevi et al. reported that the fibular notch width in dry bones was 17.42 ± 2.29 mm and 16.83 ± 2.01 mm for right and left, respectively [19]. In their study conducted on dry bones, Taşer et al. showed that the fibular notch width was 23.26 ± 3.11 mm [2]. Our study results are similar to the studies of Taşer et al. in terms of fibular notch width. The mean value of the fibular notch width in the present study was smaller than Czech, Korean and Austrian population and greater than Kenyan and Indian population.

In a study focused on relationship between ankle instability and fibular notch morphometric measurements, demonstrated that there was a strong correlation between ankle instability and anterior facet length. A presence of narrow anterior facet indicated that lateral ankle instability. In this study anterior facet length were found as 11.3 mm in study group and 13.0 mm in control group [23]. In a previous study that was conducted by using the MRI results, anterior and posterior facet lengths were reported to be 10.4 mm in men and 8.9 mm in women [10]. Musa et al. reported the anterior facet length in dry bones as 11.49 ± 1.97 mm in men and 10.9 ± 1.60 mm in women. They reported in the same study that the posterior facet length was 16.84 ± 2.13 mm and 16.08 ± 1.42 mm in men and women, respectively [18]. The anterior facet length was reported to be 11.63 ± 0.78 mm in men and 9.11 ± 0.69 mm in women in India, and the posterior facet length was 16.37 ± 0.99 mm in men and 11.65 ± 1.06 mm in women [20]. In the measurements that were made with a digital caliper on dry bones, anterior and posterior facet lengths were 1.34 and 1.28 cm, respectively. It was also reported in the study that no differences were detected between the two sides [3]. The mean anterior facet length value was reported to be 13.19 ± 1.96 mm and 12.6 ± 1.49 mm for the right and left facets, respectively. Posterior facet length was reported as 15.71 ± 2.03 mm for the right facet and 15.66 ± 1.41 mm for the left facet. In the same study, no differences were detected between the facets [19]. Taşer et al. reported that the anterior facet length was 10.89 ± 2.08 mm and the posterior facet length was 13.28 ± 1.49 mm [2]. The mean value of the anterior and posterior facet length in our study was smaller than Kenyan and Indian population and similar with the study results of Taşer et al.

In the measurements made with a goniometer on dry bones in India, the angle between the anterior and posterior facets was reported to be 124.6° ± 6.34 for the right side and 126.1° ± 8.24 for the left side [19]. In the study conducted by Yıldırım et al., the angle between the anterior and posterior facets was reported to be 138.6° and 139.9° in men and women, respectively [10]. The mean value of the the angle between the anterior and posterior facets in our study was greater than Indian population and similar with studies in our region which conducted by Yıldırım et al.

The angle between the anterior surface of the tibia and the intertubercular line, which is considered to affect the superposition of the tubercles in anteroposterior radiography images, was measured as 74.63° ± 3.13 on average in the study conducted by Taşer et al [2]. In our study, the mean value was obtained as 75.5° ± 5.47, which is similar to this result.

 Conclusion

It is considered that knowing the morphometric and anatomical characteristics of the fibular notch in detail will help radiologists evaluate the talocrural region. It is also considered that these data will guide surgeons and help determine the appropriate size for ankle reconstruction operations.

 Supporting information <p>(XLSX)</p> </caption> </supplementary-material> </sec> </body> <back> <ack> <p>The author present thanks to Resul Safak for his contribution.</p> </ack> <ref-list> <title>References Drake R, Vogl AW, Mitchell AW. Gray’s Anatomy-The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice. Forty-first ed. Elsevier; 2016. Taser F, Toker S, Kılınçoğlu. Evaluation of morphometric characteristics of the fibular incisura on dry bones. Joint Diseases and Related Surgery. 2009; 20(1): 52–58. Gupta C, Nayak N, Palimar V. A morphometric study of incisura fibularis in south Indian population with its clinical implications. Int J Anat Appl Physiol. 2018; 4(1): 84–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.19070/2572-7451-1800014 Fong DTP, Hong Y, Chan LK, Yung PSH, Chan KM. A systematic review on ankle injury and ankle sprain in sports. Sports Medicine. 2007; 37: 73–94. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200737010-00006 17190537 Chen J, Peng X, Yang Y, Tang X, Yang S, Liu T, et al. In Different Gender Groups, What Is the Impact of the Fibular Notch on the Severity of High Ankle Sprain: A Retrospective Study of 360 Cases. Orthopaedic Surgery. 2023; 15(10): 2557–2565. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13833 Hermans JJ, Beumer A, DeJong TA, Kleinrensink GJ. Anatomy of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis in adults: a pictorial essay with a multimodality approach. Journal of Anatomy. 2010; 217(6): 633–645. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01302.x 21108526 Liu T, Cheng Y, Qu W. A fibular notch approach for the treatment of ankle fractures involving the distal tibial plafond. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2021; 16: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02270-3 Ebraheim NA, Taser F, Shafiq Q, Yeasting RA. Anatomical evaluation and clinical importance of the tibiofibular syndesmosis ligaments. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 2006; 28: 142–149. doi: 10.1007/s00276-006-0077-0 16463081 Chen Y, Qiang M, Zhang K, Li H, Dai H. A reliable radiographic measurement for evaluation of normal distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: a multi-detector computed tomography study in adults. Journal of foot and ankle research. 2015; 8: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-015-0093-6 Yildirim H, Mavi A, Büyükbebeci O, Gümüşburun E. Evaluation of the fibular incisura of the tibia with magnetic resonance imaging. Foot & ankle international. 2003; 24(5): 387–391. doi: 10.1177/107110070302400502 12801193 Ebraheim NA, Lu J, Yang H, Rollins J. The fibular incisure of the tibia on CT scan: a cadaver study. Foot & ankle international. 1998; 19(5): 318–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079801900509 Sora MC, Strobl B, Staykov D, Förster‐Streffleu S. Evaluation of the ankle syndesmosis: a plastination slices study. Clinical Anatomy. 2004; 17(6): 513–517. doi: 10.1002/ca.20019 15300872 Yaka H, Özer M, Türkmen F, Demirel A, Kanatli U. The relationship between fibular notch anatomy and ATFL rupture. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2023; 62: 666−670. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2023.02.004 36941139 Mavi A, Yildirim H, Gunes H, Pestamalci T, Gumusburun E. The fibular incisura of the tibia with recurrent sprained ankle on magnetic resonance imaging. Saudi medical journal. 2002; 23(7): 845–849. 12174238 Tonogai I, Hamada D, Sairyo K. Morphology of the incisura fibularis at the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis in the Japanese population. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2017; 56(6): 1147–1150. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2017.05.020 28927702 Misir A, Uzun E, Tokmak TT. Morphology of the incisura fibularis in the Turkish population. Annals of Medical Research. 2021; 28(3): 464–470. doi: 10.5455/annalsmedres.2020.04.379 Park CH, Kim GB. Tibiofibular relationships of the normal syndesmosis differ by age on axial computed tomography—anterior fibular translation with age. Injury. 2019; 50(6): 1256–1260. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.04.022 31064651 Musa M, Pamela M, Moses O, Beda O, Gichambira G. Morphometric characteristics of the fibular incisura in adult Kenyans. Anatomy Journal of Africa. 2014; 3(1): 243–249. Sreedevi G, Sangam MR. Morphometric study of human fibular incisura in dry bones. National Journal of Clinical Anatomy. 2018; 7(2): 69–73. doi: 10.4103/2277-4025.294755 Sukre SB, Dope SK, Kawale DN. Morphometric study of the human fibular incisura. Int J Anat Res. 2016; 4: 2372–2375. Fojtík P, Kostlivý K, Bartoníček J, Naňka O. The fibular notch: an anatomical study. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 2020; 42: 1161–1166. doi: 10.1007/s00276-020-02476-w 32333090 Rozis M, Sakellariou E, Vasiliadis E, Vlamis J, Pneumaticos SG. The Radiological Anatomy of the Distal Tibiofibular Joint: A Retrospective Computed Tomography Study. Cureus. 2024; 16(2): e53540. doi: 10.7759/cureus.53540 38318279 Ataoğlu MB, Tokgöz MA, Köktürk A, Ergişi Y, Hatipoğlu MY, Kanatlı U. Radiologic evaluation of the effect of distal tibiofibular joint anatomy on arthroscopically proven ankle instability. Foot & Ankle International. 2020; 41(2): 223–228. doi: 10.1177/1071100719884555 31672069 10.1371/journal.pone.0307387.r001 Decision Letter 0 Karauda Piotr Academic Editor 2024 Piotr Karauda This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 0

8 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-34676Fibular Notch Morphometry and Its Clinical Importance on Dry BonesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. KILIÇ ŞAFAK,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 23 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Piotr Karauda, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported human remain specimen numbers and complete repository information, including institution name and geographic location. 

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement:

'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

For more information on PLOS ONE's requirements for paleontology and archeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that all information about this data can be obtained via the corresponding author.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. In discussion the authors have mentioned what other got but not comparted their results with his results.

2. In figure 1 all measurements are not seen like angles etc. (AFD: from a to c; PFD: from b to c; AAPF: angle between a-c and bc; AASIL: angle between intertubercular line and anterior surface tangent line.) Show this correctly.

Kindly do the corrections as mentioned above. Kindly add some new clinically relevant information to your study.

Reviewer #2: 1. The photos of tibia can be included with labeling and measurements taken instead of adding hand drawn images

2. Below the table-1 the expansion (full form) of various parameters can be given for easy interpretation

3. The Pearson Correlation Analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between the measurement values but the analysis is not clearly explained in the result and interpreted like t test.

4. The references were till 2020 if possible the latest reference can be given

5. out of 76 dry bones how many were right and how many were left, Sex identification of the bone was done or not explain

6. ImageJ Software include the software details and the precision point of the software

7. Aim & objectives can be explained clearly with the interpretations

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Chandni Gupta

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Reviewers.docx

 10.1371/journal.pone.0307387.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 0 Submission Version 1

24 May 2024

Responses for Journal Requirements:

1. The requested checks completed and amandments about PLOS ONE's style requirement have been made.

2. All information about this data uploaded as supplementary information tool.

3. An additional information regarding the specimens used in your study added in our manuscript.

4. All information about this data uploaded as supplementary information tool.

Responses for Reviewer 1:

1. In accordance with the reviewer’ suggestion, authors were added comparisons with other studies in discussion part.

2. All measurements in Figure 1 have been corrected. New clinically relevant information were added to our study.

Responses for Reviewer 2:

1. The photos of tibia added instead of hand drawn images in line with the recommendations.

2. Below the Table1 the full form of various parameters is given for easy interpretation.

3. Additional table (Table 2) has been added for clearly understanding of analysis.

4. The relevant latest references have been added.

5. As mentioned in the first sentence of materials and methods section “This study was carried out with 76 dry adult tibial bone specimens (right 38, left 38) with unknown age and sex collected from the Department of Anatomy, Cukurova University, Adana.”.

6. Detailed information about the ImageJ Software and precision point were added in the manuscript. And also for additional information web address of the software were added in the manuscript.

7. Aim & objectives were updated for explaining clearly with the interpretations.

I would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable contributions.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

 10.1371/journal.pone.0307387.r003 Decision Letter 1 Karauda Piotr Academic Editor 2024 Piotr Karauda This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 1

1 Jul 2024

Fibular Notch Morphometry and Its Clinical Importance on Dry Bones

PONE-D-23-34676R1

Dear Dr. KILIÇ ŞAFAK,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Piotr Karauda, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations, well done!

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for doing all the corrections. Well done the study has been done meticulously and presented well.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Chandni Gupta, Additional Professor, Department of Anatomy, KMC, Manipal

Reviewer #2: No

**********

 10.1371/journal.pone.0307387.r004 Acceptance letter Karauda Piotr Academic Editor 2024 Piotr Karauda This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

5 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-34676R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. KILIÇ ŞAFAK,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Piotr Karauda

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE