https://imedsciences.com/ editor_ijims@hotmail.com
ISSN: 2394-4137 (E) 2394-6318 (P)

IJIMS.2016.135

Type of Article: Original

Volume 3; Issue 7: July 2016

Page No.: 341-344

DOI: 10.16965/ijims.2016.135

A Morphometric Study of Femur and Its Clinical Importance

Ravi G.O 1,   Shaik Hussain Saheb *2, Abraham Ratna Joseph N 3.

1 Assistant Professor Department of Orthopedics, JJM Medical College, Davangere, Karnataka, India.

*2 Assistant Professor Department of Anatomy, JJM Medical College, Davangere, Karnataka, India.

3 Assistant Professor, Avalon University School of Medicine Sta. Rosaweg, Willemstad, Curacao.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR ADDRESS: Shaik Hussain Saheb, Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, JJM Medical College, Davangere, Karnataka, India. Mobile No.: +91-9242056660 E-Mail: anatomyshs@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Background: The femur is the largest and strongest bone in the body and the structure of its proximal portion allows the leg to move in three dimensions relative to the torso, thus serving as a linchpin of  human mobility. Moreover, age related and pediatric disorders at this skeletal site are common and confer strong risk factors for current and future disability. In Orthopaedic practice, operations on femur are the most common. Variations in hip morphology are also of critical interest to surgical planning where the ability to take hip morphology into account on a patient specific basis is crucial for success in choosing designs of implants and other structures used for hip replacements and augmentations of hip stability. The present study is focused on morphometric measurement of adult dry femur.

Objectives: The objectives of present study to find out the measurements of Neck shaft angle, Femoral Length and Neck Length of femur.

Materials and Methods: In present study have used 592 femurs from different colleges in south India. The following measurements were conducted  Neck shaft angle, Femoral Length and Neck Length of femur.

Results: The results of present study are the length of femur was 447.1+28.94mm, right femur was 447.9+28.72mm and left femur was 446.2+29.12mm,  the Neck Length  femur was 36.3+5.4mm,  right femur was 36.4+5.2mm and left femur  was 36.1+5.6mm. the neck shaft angle of femur was  136.80, right femur was 136.70 and left femur  was 136.90.

Conclusion: There is no significance difference between right and left femur measurements.  The present study results are may helpful for orthopaedic, radiology and anthropological practice.

KEY WORDS: Femoral Length, Neck Length, Neck Shaft angle and Femur.

REFERENCES

  1. Susan Standring, Gray’s Anatomy, The Anatomical basis of clinical practice, 40 edition, Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, London. 2008; 1360-13.
  2. Bidmos M A, Estimation of stature using fragmentary femora in indigenous south Africans, Int J Legal Med.- 2008;122[4]:293-9.
  3. Subtrochanteric femur fractures. Orthopaedia Main. In: Orthopaedia – Collaborative Orthopaedic Knowledgebase. Created Jan 27, 2008 17:18. Last modified Nov 22, 2009 20:14 ver.10.
  4. Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMR. Clinically Oriented Anatomy. USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
  5. Gujar S, Vikani S, Parmar J, Bondre KV. A Correlation Between Femoral Neck Shaft Angle to Femoral Neck Length. Int J Biomed & Adv Res 2013; 4(5): 295-298.
  6. Williams PL, Warwick R, Dyson M, Bannister LH. Gray’s Anatomy. USA: Churchill Livingstone; 1989.
  7. Tian PT, Chen Y, Leow WK, Hsu W, Howe TS, Png MA. Computing Neck Shaft Angle of Femur for X-Ray Fracture Detection. In: Petkov N, Westenberg, editors. Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns. CAIP 2003: Proceedings of 10th International Conference; 2003 August 25-27; Groningen, The Netherlands. Berlin: Springer; 2003.  82-89.
  8. Bulandra, AM, Gielecki JS, Leciejewska I, Karaszewski P. Digital-Image Analysis of the Femoral Shaft/Neck Angle in Human Fetuses. Folia Morphol 2003; 62(4): 415-17.
  9. Tuck SP, Rawlings DJ, Scane AC, Pande I, Summers GD, Woolf AD, Francis RM. Femoral Neck Shaft Angle in Men with Fragility Fractures. J Osteoporosis 2011 ; Article ID 903276. Available from: http:// dx.doi.org/10.4061/2011/903726 .
  10. Anusuya Shrestha, Nirju Ranjit, Rajani Shrestha. Neck Shaft Angle of Non-articulated Femur Bones among Adults in Nepal. MJSBH;2015;4(2):1-4.
  11. Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMRClinically Oriented Anatomy. USALippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
  12. Ali L, Uddin S, Akhtar KM. 2003. Neck Shaft Angle of Femur in Paksitani Population. The Professional 2003; 10(1): 19-22.
  13. Ravichandran D, Muthukumaravel N, Jaikumar R, Das H, Rajendran M. Proximal Femoral Geometry in Indians and its Clinical Applications. J Anat Soc Ind 2011; 60(1): 6-12.
  14. Khan SM, Saheb SH. Study on Neck Shaft Angle and Femoral Length of South Indian Femurs. Int J Anat Res 2014; 2(4): 633-35.
  15. Gujar S, Vikani S, Parmar J, Bondre KV. A Correlation Between Femoral Neck Shaft Angle to Femoral Neck Length. Int J Biomed & Adv Res 2013; 4(5): 295-298.
  16. Silva VJD, Oda JY, Santana DMG. Anatomical Aspects of the Proximal Femur of Adult Brazilians. Int J Morph 2003; 21(4): 303-308.
  17. Reddy VS, Moorthy GV, Reddy SG. Do we need a special design of femoral component of total hip prosthesis in our patients? Indian J Orthop 1999;33:282-4.
  18. Mishra AK, Chalise P, Singh RP, Shah RK. The proximal femur a second look at rational of implant design. Nepal Med Coll J 2009;11:278-80.
  19. Leung K, Procter P, Robioneck B, Behrens K. Geometric mismatch of the gamma nail to the Chinese femur. Clin Orthop 1996;323:42-8.
  20. Zuylan T, Murshid KA. An analysis of Anatolian human femur anthropometry. Turk J Med Sci 2002;32:231-35.
  21. Bhosale RS, Zambare BR. Sex determination from femur using length of femur in Maharashtra. J Dent Med Sci 2013;3:01-3.
  22. S Dhivya, V Nandhini. A Study of Certain Femoral Metrics in South Indian Population and its Clinical Importance International Journal of Scientific Study. 2015; 3(7):132-135.
  23. Pandya A M, Singel T C, akbari V J, Dangar K P, Tank K C, Patel M P . Sexual dimorphism of maximum femoral Length. National journal of medical research. 2011;1(2).
  24. Rajeshwari S. Bhosale, Dr. B. R. Zambare. Sex determination from femur using length of femur in Maharashtra. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2013;3(4):01-03.
  25. Ravichandran D et al. Proximal femoral geometry in Indians and its clinical applications. J. Anat. Sco. India 2011;60(1):6-12.
  26. Siwach RC, Dahiya S. Anthropometric study of proximal femur geometry and its clinical apllication. Indian journal of Orthopaedics. 2003;37(4):247-51.
  27. De Sousa EB, Fernandes RM, Mathias MB, Rodrigues MR, Ambram AJ, Babinski MA, et al. Morphometric study of the proximal femur extremity in Brazilians. Int J Morphol 2010;28:835-40.
  28. Hussian SS, Mavishetter GF, Thomas ST, Prasanna LC, Muralidhar P. Occipitalization of Atlas: A case report. J Biomed Sci and Res 2010;2:73-5.
  29. Hussain Saheb S, Mavishettar GF, Thomas ST, Prasanna LC. Incidence of metopic suture in adult south Indian skulls. J Biomed Sci Res 2010;2:223-6.
  30. Shaik HS, Shepur MP, Desai SD, Thomas ST, Maavishettar GF, Haseena S. Morphometric analysis of Infra orbital foramen position in south Indian skulls. Indian J. Innovations Dev. July 2012.
  31. Shaik HS, Shepur Muralidhar P, Desai SD, Thomas ST, Maavishettar GF, Haseena S. Morphological and morphometric study of mental foramen south indian mandibles.Indian Journal of Medicine and Healthcare.2012;1(3):64–66.
  32. Muralidhar P Shepur, Magi M, Nanjundappa B, Pavan P Havaldar, Premalatha Gogi, Shaik Hussain Saheb. Morphometric Analysis of Foramen Magnum. Int J Anat Res (2014); 2(1):249-55.
Download Full Text TOC