Home About Us Contact Us

 

Table of Content - Volume 7 Issue 1 - July 2017


Morphometric evaluation of human femur

 

Dhairyashilrao Y Shinde1, Anita Gaule2*

 

1Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed to be university Dental college and hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, INDIA.

2Assistant Professor, Department of Physiology, B. Y. L. Nair hospital and T. N. Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, INDIA.

Email: anita.shrikrishan@gmail.com

 

Abstract              Background: The femoral morphology, throughout ontogeny, seems to be influenced by its functions. The parameters might be useful in providing important data to orthopaedicians, archeologists, forensic legal experts and anatomists. Aim: To evaluate the morphological features of femur i.e. length, various angles, circumferences and diameters at specified points and to compare these findings with earlier studies. Material and Methods: A total of 353 dried, intact human femora were selected for the study. All the femora were classified into Right side and Left side. The femora were not sexed for measurements in the present study. Nine parameters pertaining to proximal end, shaft, distal end and various angles of the femora were measured. Results: On bilateral comparison of the femora, the circumference of the neck, neck- shaft angle and bicondylar angle were found to be significantly different on both the sides. Whereas, the length of femur, circumference of shaft, vertical diameter of the head and neck, transverse diameter of the shaft and the bicondylar width did not show significant difference on comparison of both the sides. Conclusion: The measurements and indices obtained from this study will allow safe instrumentation and fixation. In addition, the distances and curvatures determined by this study will help in the proper alignment of bone fragments.

Key Words: Femur, Femoral Length, Neck circumference, Neck-Shaft angle.

 

INTRODUCTION

Femur, the longest and the strongest bone of the human body, has evolved to perfectly serve the purpose of walking, while maintaining erect posture of the body. It has acquired an efficiently ergonomic design for weight bearing and locomotion, through the evolutionary process. During evolution the femoral morphology has changed to a great extent as the need for erect posture and bipedalism became a necessity for survival of human race. These changes, especially at the upper and lower end, have made weight bearing and locomotion possible with extreme efficiency.1,2 All the parameters selected in the present study have a very significant clinical, forensic, and anthropological significance. As is well known, the function of an organ decides its structure; or alternatively the structure sub serves the function. Thus femoral morphology, throughout ontogeny, seems to be influenced by its functions. This is reflected by the changes in the neck-shaft angle and the bicondylar angle in an infant as it starts weight bearing and locomotion.3 The present study was undertaken to evaluate the morphological features of femur i.e. length, various angles, circumferences and diameters at specified points and to compare these findings with earlier studies. The findings of this study, variations in size, shape and relationships of proximal and distal ends of femur might be useful in providing important data to orthopaedicians, archeologists, forensic legal experts and anatomists.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present study involved the preparation of morphometric database of Human Femur in Indian population. A total of 353 dried, intact human femora were selected for the study. All the femora were classified into Right side and Left side. The femora were not sexed for measurements in the present study. Nine parameters pertaining to proximal end, shaft, distal end and various angles of the femora were measured. The following measurements were recorded.

  • The femoral length: With the help of osteometric board
  • The femoral anterior neck length: With the help of sliding caliper
  • The femoral neck shaft angle: With the help of goniometer.

The findings were tabulated, statistically analyzed and discussed, comparing them with similar studies done earlier. Quantitative femoral morphometric record was prepared that may be of interest to the anatomists, anthropologists, and clinicians.

 

RESULTS

After completing the measurements of all 353 femora, data was divided into two groups: Right side (n=175) and Left side (n=178). The study was carried out on right and left femora. In total 353 cases are studied and observation on the morphometric data of the various aspects of femur like length, shaft circumference and diameter, neck circumference and diameter, bicondylar width, bicondylar angle, neck-shaft angle etc. were recorded.

 

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics (Right Side)

Parameters (Rt. side)

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

SD

Length

175

32.3

44.63

44.79771

30.6503641

Circumference Neck

175

7.6

11.8

9.507429

.7809526

Circumference Shaft

175

6.8

9.8

8.125143

.5900973

Vertical Diameter Head

175

3.1

4.9

3.988571

.3478765

Vertical Diameter Neck

175

2.1

12.9

2.946286

.8199211

Transverse Diameter Shaft

175

1.3

3.0

2.394857

.2259764

Bicondylar width

175

5.7

8.7

7.303429

.5848565

Neck-shaft Angle

175

114.4

154.7

134.4977

7.7099425

Bicondylar Angle

175

1.4

13.3

6.566857

2.5297628

 

The mean value of the length of femur on the right side was 44.79±30.65andon the left side was 44.67±30.80. There was no significant difference between mean length of right side and left side. The mean values of circumference of the neck of femur on the right side was 9.50±0.78 and on the left side was 9.33±0.78. There was significant difference between mean circumference of neck of right side and left side. The mean value of circumference of shaft on the right side was 8.12±0.59 and on the left side was 8.06±0.60.There was no significant difference between mean circumference shaft of Right side and left side. In the present study, mean value of the vertical diameter of the head of femur on the right side was 3.98±0.34 and on the left side was 3.92±0.33. There was no significant difference between mean diameter head of Right side and left side. The mean value of the vertical diameter of the neck of femur on the right side was 2.94±0.81 cm and on the left side was 2.83±0.31. There was no significant difference between mean diameter head of Right side and left side. The mean values of transverse diameter of shaft of femur on the right side was 2.39±0.22 and on the left side was 2.42±0.24. There was no significant difference between mean diameter of shaft of right side and left side. Mean values of bicondylar width of femur on the right side was 7.34±0.58 and on the left side was 7.25±0.57. There was no significant difference between bicondylar width of right side and left side. In the present study mean values of neck-shaft angle of femur on the right side was 134.49±7.70 and on the left side was 132.63±8.71. There was significant difference between neck shaft angle of right side and left side. Mean values of bicondylar angle of femur on the right side was 6.56±2.52 and on the left side was 7.70±6.18. There was significant difference between bicondylar angle of right side and left side.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics (Left Side)

Parameters (Lt. side)

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

SD

Length

178

35.5

452.0

44.67303

30.8096187

Circumference Neck

178

7.3

11.9

9.335393

.7839745

Circumference Shaft

178

6.8

9.6

8.064045

.6016451

Vertical Diameter Head

178

3.1

4.9

3.927528

.3340820

Vertical Diameter Neck

178

2.1

3.7

2.836517

.3140103

Transverse Diameter Shaft

178

1.9

3.9

2.428090

.2490610

Bicondylar width

178

5.8

8.6

7.252247

.5746239

Neck-shaft Angle

178

110.3

177.9

132.6365

8.7174844

Bicondylar Angle

178

1.7

82.0

7.700562

6.1852978

DISCUSSION

Femur presents a large number of parameters for morphometric study and has been widely studied for anthropometric, forensic and clinical perusal. A large number of studies have been done using the sexually dimorphic nature of the femur. Similarly, the morphometric variations have been exploited by a large number of researchers to their advantage for discriminating races, populations and also to define evolutional changes. In the present study there was no significant difference between mean length of right side and left side. StreckerW et al,4 in their study found that there is no significant difference in the mean lengths of the femora of both the sides. On comparison of both the studies, there is no significant difference in right side values, (p = 0.52) as well as left side values (p = 0.47).

 

Table 3: Comparison between mean values of length of femur of present study with different studies

Present Study* (cm)

GargiS et al5 (cm)

Leelavathy N et al6 (cm)

Gupta P et al7 (cm)

Duthie RA et al8 (cm)

 

44.73

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

43.95

41.06

44.33

40.42

43.75

39.81

46.49

42.84

    *Sex not specified M-Male, F-Female.

 

In the present study there was significant difference between mean circumference of neck of right side and left side. Valter José da Silva et al8 did not find statistically significant difference in circumference of the femur neck, when the right and left femurs were compared. There was no significant difference between mean circumference shaft of right side and left side.Züylan T et al,10 did not find statistically significant difference circumference of the shaft, when the right and left femora were compared. In the present study, there was no significant difference between mean diameter head of right side and left side.Züylan T et al,10found that the vertical diameter of the head of the right femur was significantly greater than the corresponding left femur (p<0.05). Chauhan R et al11 noticed that in both sexes the vertical diameter was more on the left side than the right side though the difference was statistically non significant (male p=0.71; female p=0.28). Asala SA et al12 noted that the mean diameter of the head of the Nigerian male femur was significantly greater than that of the female (p <0.001). Asala SA et al12found that the mean head diameter of the male femur was significantly greater than the mean head diameter of the female femur in both the south African white and black population groups (significant at P<0.001). Afroze A et al13observed that the mean vertical and transverse diameters of the head of the male femur were significantly greater than that of female (p<0.001). Chauhan R et al11 noticed that the vertical diameter of femoral head was greater in males than in females, both on right and left sides, but was statistically insignificant (right p=0.42, left p=0.42). It was also noticed that in both the sexes the vertical diameter was more on the left side than the right side, though the difference was statistically non significant (male p=0.71, female p=0.28). Mishra et al14found that the mean vertical diameter of head was 4.29 cm. There was no significant difference between mean diameter head of Right side and left side.Mishra et al14have found femoral neck diameter (superoinferior) to be 3.05cm.Züylan T et al,10 did not notice any statistically significant difference in the two sides. In the present study, there was no significant difference between mean diameter of shaft of right side and mean diameter of shaft of left side. Züylan T et al,10 in their study found that there is no significant difference in the transverse diameters of shaft of the femora of both the sides. There was no significant difference between bicondylar width of right side and left side. Züylan T et al,10in their study found that there is no significant difference in the biconydlar width of the femora of both the sides. There was significant difference between neck shaft angle of right side and left side. Otsianyi WK et al15 have found no statistical difference between right and left sided femora, as well as between male and female sexes. Liaquat Ali16 has found higher values in right side as compared to left side. KC Saikia et al17 have found significantly higher values in left side as compared to right side. There was significant difference between bicondylar angle of right side and left side. Pandya AM et al18found that the bicondylar angle was higher in females on both the sides, and on comparison of the same sides between the sexes, the difference was statistically highly significant on the left side (p<0.001) and significant on the right side (p< 0.05).

 

CONCLUSION

The fixation of fractured fragments requires an appropriate knowledge of the dimensions of the femur. The measurements and indices obtained from this study will allow safe instrumentation and fixation. In addition, the distances and curvatures determined by this study will help in the proper alignment of bone fragments. The study will also help in formulating parameters for manufacturing implants using data derived from a studied population.

 

 

 

REFERENCES

  1. Susan Standring. Gray’s Anatomy. The Anatomical basis of clinical practice. 40th edition. Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, London. 2008; 1360-13.
  2. Harcourt-Smith WEH.The origins of bipedal locomotion. In: Henke W Tattersall I (eds). Handbook of paleoanthropology. Vol III Phylogeny of hominids. Springer, Berlin: 2007; pp.1492-1493.
  3. Bidmos MA. Estimation of stature using fragmentary femora in indigenous south Africans, Int J Legal Med 2008; 122(4):293-9.
  4. Strecker W, Keppler P, Gebhard F, Kinzl L. Length and Torsion of the Lower Limb.J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1997; 79-B: 1019-23.
  5. Soni G,Dhall U, Chhabra S. Determination of Sex from Femur: A Discriminant Analysis. Journal of Anatomical Society of India 2010; 59(2):216-221.
  6. Leelavathy N, Rajangam S, Janakiram S, Thomas IM. Sexing of the Femora. Journal of the Anatomical Society of India 2000; 49(1):17-20.
  7. Arora AK, Gupta P, Mahajan S, Kapoor SS.Significance of sacral index in estimation of sex in sacra of cadavers in Punjab.J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2015;32(1):25-27.
  8. Duthie RA, Bruce MF, Hutchison JD. Changing proximal femoral geometry in north east Scotland, an osteometric study. BMJ1998; 316(16):1498.
  9. Valter José da Silva,JulianoYasuo Oda,Débora de Mello GonçalesSant'Ana. Anatomical Aspects of the Proximal Femur of Adult Brazilians. Int J Morphol 2003; 21(4):303-308.
  10. Züylan T,Murshid KA.An Analysis of Anatolian Human Femur Anthropometry.Turk J Med Sci 2002;32:231-235.
  11. Chauhan R, Paul S, Dhaon B.K. Anatomical Parameters of North Indian Hip Joints – Cadaveric Study. J AnatSoc India 2002; 51(1):39-42.
  12. Asala SA, Mbajiorgu FE, Papandro BA. A comparative study of femoral head diameters and sex differentiation in Nigerians. ActaAnatomica 1998; 162:232-237.
  13. Afroze A, Huda MD. Femoral Head Diameters and Sex Differentiation in the Northern Zone (Rajshahi) of Bangladesh.TAJ December 2005; 18(2):84-88.
  14. Mishra AK, Chalise P, Singh RP, Shah RK.The proximal femur –a second look at rational of implant design. Nepal Med Coll J 2009; 11(4):278-280.
  15. Otsianyi WK, Naipanoi AP, Koech A.The femoral collodiaphyseal angle amongst selected Kenyan ethnic groups. JMorpholSci 2011; 28(2):129-131.
  16. Ali L. Neck-Shaft Angle of Femur in Pakistan Population, The Professional Medical Journal2003; 10(1):19-22.
  17. Saikia KC, Bhuyan SK, Rongphar R. Anthropometric study of the hip joint in Northeastern region population with computed tomography scan. Indian J Orthop 2008; 42(3):260–266.
  18. Pandya AM, et al. A Study of the Femoral Bicondylar Angle in the Gujarat Region.J AnatSoc India2008; 57(2):131-134.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 








Policy for Articles with Open Access
Authors who publish with MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology (Print ISSN:2579-0900) (Online ISSN: 2636-4654) agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.


Journal Menu MIJOMED Medpulse Manuscript Submission Subscription Aim & Scope Peer Review Process Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement Open Access Statement Plagiarism Policy Editorial Board Indexing Current Issue Publication Charges Archives Authors Information Copyright & Licensing Privacy Statement Contact Us