Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 5; Issue 2.2 (May 2017)

Page No.: 3870-3875

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2017.209


Ashwini. N.S *1, Venkateshu.K.V 2.

*1 Assistant Professor, Department Of Anatomy, Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Tamaka, Kolar, Karnataka, India.

2 Professor And Head, Department Of Anatomy, Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Tamaka, Kolar, Karnataka, India.

Address for Correspondence: Dr. Ashwini.N.S, Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Tamaka,Kolar-563101, Karnataka, India.E-Mail: drashwini2000@gmail.com


Introduction: The Bicipital Groove (BG) or intertubercular groove in the upper end of the humerus is a deep groove formed between the greater and lesser tubercles. This groove lodges the long tendon of the Biceps brachii and also transmits a branch of the anterior humeral circumflex artery. Its lips are called as the crests of the greater and lesser tubercles (bicipital ridges), and form the upper parts of the anterior and medial borders of the body of the bone.

Materials and Methods The study was carried out in 87 adult humeri (39 right and 48 left sides) from the Department of Anatomy, Sri Devaraj Urs Medical college, Tamaka, Kolar, Karnataka. Damaged or bones with deformities were excluded from the study. The length, width, depth were accurately measured  using digital vernier callipers.The medial wall angle(MWA) and lateral wall angle(LWA) were measured using goniometer. The parameters were tabulated and statistically analysed.

Results and Discussion: The mean length of BG on right side was 89.94 ±6.03 mm and 88.88±8.11mm on left side. The length of medial and lateral walls of BG on the  right side was 81.72± 6.34mm  and 89.61± 6.03 mm respectively and  79.56± 7.64 mm and 89.15± 8.27mm on left side. The mean width of BG on right side was 8.53± 1.56 and 7.96 ±1.39mm on left side. The mean depth of BG on right side was 6.48±1.13 mm and 6.14±1.04mm on left side. The medial wall angle of BG on the right  side was 66.15± 13.20mm and 64.37± 18.81 mm on left side. The maximum length of humerus was 32.49± 1.83 cm on right side and 31.72 ± 2.03 cm on left side. Supratubercular ridge  of Meyer was present in 87.17 %  of  humeri from the right and 85 % of those from  the left. Medial wall spurs was present in 4.16% of left humeri and absent in right  humeri. Bicipital groove spurs was present in 5.12% of right humeri. Type 2 variation of medial wall angle was the commonest and  Type 6 was the rare variation similar to observation made by Hitchcock and Bechtol.

Conclusions: Bicipital groove can be a used as a landmark for humeral head replacement in fractures of the upper end of the humerus. Osseous spurs and supratubercular ridge may predispose dislocation of tendon of biceps brachii. Therefore the study  is important  as the knowledge of its morphometry is essential for the selection of prosthetic design, size and position.

KEY WORDS: Bicipital groove, Supratubercular ridge, osseous spurs, groove spurs


  1. Yamini Soundararajan, Senthil Kumar Sampath Kumar. Morphometric Study on Bicipital Groove among South Indian Population. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2016;10(7):AC01-AC03.
  2. B V Murlimanju, Latha V. Prabhu, Mangala M Pai et al. Anthropometric Study of the Bicipital Groove in Indians and its Clinical Implications. Chang Gung Med J. 2012;35(2):155-159.
  3. Singh Rajani, Singh Man. Review of Bicipital Groove Morphology and Its Analysis in North Indian Population. Hindawi Publishing Corporation ISRN Anatomy. 2013.
  4. Phalguni Srimani , Ritaban Saha , Biplab Goswami et al. Morphometric Analysis of Bicipital Groove of Humerus with its clinical implications: A study in West Bengal. Int J Anat Res.2016;l 4(4):3009-15.
  5. Arunkumar K R, Manoranjitham R , Delhi Raj U et al. Morphometric Study of Bicipital Groove In South Indian population and its clinical implications. Int J Anat Res. 2016; 4(2):2187-91.
  6. Priya Ranganath, Balasubramanyam V et al. Variations in measurements of Upper and Lower Ends of Humerus. South Asian Anthropologist. 2011;11(2): 181-183.
  7. Maninder Kaur, Rimpi Gupta. Morphometric & morphological study of Bicipital Groove in North Indian Population. International Journal of Basic and Applied Medical Sciences . 2015;5(3):48-53.
  8. Selvakumar Vettivel, Indrasingh G. Chandi S. M. Chandi. Variations in the intertubercular sulcus of the humerus related to handedness. J. Anat.1992;180:321-326.
  9. Susan standring, Grays Anatomy: the anatomical basis of clinical practice, 40th edition, Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchil Livingstone: 2008.796-798.
  10. Pfahler M, Branner S, Refior HJ. The role of the bicipital groove in tendinopathy of the long biceps tendon. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8:419-24.
  11. Abboud JA, Bartolozzi AR, Widmer BJ, DeMola PM. Bicipital groove morphology on MRI has no correlation to intra-articular biceps tendon pathology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 ;19(6):790-4.
  12. Bhatia DN, Van Rooyen KS, De Beer JF. Direct arthroscopy of the bicipital groove: a new approach to evaluation and treatment of bicipital groove and biceps tendon pathology. 2008;24(3):368.
  13. Cone RO, Danzig L, Resnick D, Goldman AB. The bicipital groove: radiographic, anatomic and pathologic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;141:781-88.
  14. Farin PU, Jaroma H.The bicipital groove of the humerus: sonographic and radiographic correlation. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25(3):215-9.
  15. Ueberham K, Le Floch-Prigent P.Intertubercular sulcus of the humerus: biometry and morphology of 100 dry bones. Surg Radiol Anat. 1998;20(5):351-4.
  16. Vettivel S, Selvaraj KG, Chandi SM, Indrasingh I, Chandi G.Intertubercular sulcus of the humerus as an indicator of handedness and humeral length. Clin Anat. 1995;8(1):44-50.
  17. Aaron D. Ward, Ghassan Hamarneh,Mark E. Schweitzer.3D Bicipital Groove Shape Analysis and Relationship to Tendopathy.J Digit Imaging. 2008 ;21(2):219-34.
  18. Wafae N, Atencio Santamaria LE, Vitor L, Pereira LA, Ruiz CR, Wafae GC. Morphometry of the human bicipital groove (sulcus intertubercularis). J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(1):65-8.
  19. Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Yamaguchi K. Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: Relevance to arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2000; 82(11):1594–602.
  20. Wayne Z. Burkhead, Jr., MD, Peter Habermeyer, MD, Gilles Walch, MD, Kenneth Lin, MD .Musculoskeletal key. The Biceps Tendon. Chapter 26.
  21. Wayne Z. Burkhead, Jr., MD, Peter Habermeyer, MD, Gilles Walch, MD, Kenneth Lin, MD .Musculoskeletal key. Gross Anatomy of the Shoulder. Chapter 2.
  22. Anudeep Singh, Mahindra Nagar, and Anil Kumar. An Anthropometric Study of the Humerus in Adults. Research & Reviews: Journal of Medical and Health Sciences.2014.
  23. Hitchcock H H, Bechtol C O. Painful shoulder. Observations on the role of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii in its causation. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1948;30:263-73.

Cite this article: Ashwini. N.S, Venkateshu.K.V. MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF BICIPITAL GROOVE OF UPPER END OF HUMERUS IN SOUTH INDIAN POPULATION. Int J Anat Res 2017;5(2.2):3870-3875. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2017.209