Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 5; Issue 3.1 (July 2017)

Page No.: 4056-4062

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2017.249


Ajari Ashutosha 1, Kate Deepali R *2, Chandanwale Ajay 3, Bahetee B H 2, Babhulkar Ashish 1.

1 Department of Shoulder and Sports injury, Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, Pune, India.

*2 Department of Anatomy, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College and Sassoon Hospital. Pune, India.

3 Department of Orthopaedic, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College and Sassoon Hospital. Pune, India.

*Address for Correspondence: Dr. Kate Deepali Rajesh, Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, India. E-Mail: drd.kate@gmail.com


Introduction: It is know that Asian shoulders are small and require attention while planning replacement surgeries. The prostheses currently available are based on western database and only few sizes fit into the Asian shoulders.  The native database will also help us to calculate humerus bone loss and prostheses designing.

Materials and Methods: Sixty seven paired humeri (Left-33, Right-34) were included in study. Adult wet humeri were retrieved from embalmed human cadavers fixed in formalin. The humeral head dimensions and version were measured with fixed protocol.

Results: The mean humerus head height, antero-posterior and medio-lateral diameter of both sides was 18.57 ±2.82 mm, 39.65 ±2.97 mm and 43.11 ±3.73 mm respectively. The mean humerus head version on both sides was 37.30 ±7.85 degrees.

Conclusion: The smaller dimensions of the proximal humerus in the Asian population need to be contemplated while designing and fitting prosthesis in total shoulder arthroplasty and for assessing bone loss while establishing criteria for anatomic restoration, post surgery.

KEY WORDS: Humerus head, Morphometry, Cadaver, Arthroplasty, Humerus version.


  1. Figgie HE III, Inglis AE, Goldberg VM, et al. An analysis of factors affecting the long term results of total shoulder arthroplasty in inflammatory arthritis. J Arthroplasty 1988;3:123-30.
  2. Friedman RJ. Biomechanics of the shoulder following total shoulder replacement.In: Post M, Morrey BF, Hawkins RJ, eds. Surgery of the shoulder. St Louis, Mosby-Year Book, 1990:263-6.
  3. Ballmer FT, Sidles JA, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA, III. Humeral head prosthetic arthroplasty: surgically relevant geometric considerations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1993;2:296-304.
  4. Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Yamaguchi K. Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:1594-602.
  5. Edelson G. Variations in the retroversion of the humeral head. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999;8:142-5.
  6. Pearl ML, Volk AG. Coronal plane geometry of the proximal humerus relevant to prosthetic arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1996;5:320-6.
  7. Craig EV. Total shoulder replacement for primary osteoarthritis and osteonecrosls. In Craig EV, editor The shoulder New York Raven Press, 1995 p 3 1 l-43 Cyprlen JM, Vasey HM, Burdet A, Bonvin.
  8. Hasan SS, Leith JM, Campbell B, Kapil R, Smith KL, Matsen FA. 3rd. Characteristics of unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002; 11:431-41. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.125806.
  9. Edelson G. The Development of humeral head retroversion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2000;9:316-8.
  10. Boileau P, Walch G. The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997;79:857-65.
  11. Jennifer A. DeLude, Ryan T. Bicknell, Geoff A. MacKenzie, Louis M. Ferreira, Cynthia E. Dunning, Graham J. W. King, MD, James A. Johnson and Darren S. Drosdowech. An anthropometric study of the bilateral anatomy of the humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16: 477-483.
  12. Boileau P, Walch G, Liotard JP. Cineradiographic study of active elevation of the prosthetic shoulder. J Orthop Surg 1992;6:351-9.
  13. Harryman DT, Sidles JA, Harris SI, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA III.The effect of articular conformity and the size of the humeral head component on laxity and motion after glenohumeral arthroplasty: a study in cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1995;77-A:555-63.
  14. Jobe CM, Iannotti JP. Limits imposed on glenohumeral motion by joint geometry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1995;4:281-5.
  15. Burkhart SS, DeBeer JF. Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic bankart repairs: significance of the inverted – pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-sachs lesion. Arthroscopy .2000; 16:677-694
  16. Itoi E, Yamamoto N, Kurokawa D, Sano H. Bone loss in anterior instability. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2013;6:88-94.
  17. Kate Deepali R, Ajari Ashutosh, Chandanwale Ajay, Bahetee B H, Babhulkar Ashish. Osseous anatomy of glenoid: cadaveric study. Int J Anat Res 2016, Vol 4(2):2473-79.
  18. Ralph Hertel, MD, Ulf Knothe, MD, and Franz T. Ballmer, MD, Berne, Switzerland. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002;11:331–8.
  19. Hernigou P, Duparc F, Filali C. Humeral retroversion and shoulder prosthesis [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1995;81:419-27.

Cite this article: Ajari Ashutosha, Kate Deepali R, Chandanwale Ajay, Bahetee B H, Babhulkar Ashish. MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS AND SURGICAL ANATOMY OF PROXIMAL HUMERUS. Int J Anat Res 2017;5(3.1):4056-4062. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2017.249