Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 5; Issue 3.2 (August 2017)

Page No.: 4317-4320

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2017.321


Mrunal Muley *1, Pritha Bhuiyan 2.

*1 Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, GMC Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.

2 Professor and Head, Department of Anatomy, Seth G.S. Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Address: Dr. Mrunal Muley, Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. India Mob. 9987708985, E-Mail: mrunal.137@gmail.com


Introduction: Fractures of proximal femur including neck and trochanters are quite common. The implants used for surgical treatment of femoral fractures are designed according to the dimensions of proximal femur which are designed according to dimensions suitable for western population. The current study aims to construct data of morphometry of neck of femur in Indian population.

Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 150 dry adult femora from the bone collection of the Department of Anatomy of G. S. Medical College Mumbai. Width of neck of femur and length of neck of femur on anterior and posterior aspect were measured.

Observation and Results: Mean width of neck of femur (29.38 ± 2.50 mm on right side and 28.86 ± 3.47mm on left side); mean length of neck of femur on anterior aspect; (34.96 ± 7.18 mm on right side and 33.42 ± 4.12 mm) and mean length of neck of femur on posterior aspect (39.55 ± 5.81mm on right side and 40.00 ± 4.60 mm on left side) were calculated.

Conclusion: Indian dimensions of neck of femur are different as compared to those of other population. The current morphometric study of neck of femur will be very useful for designing implants used for surgical correction of femoral neck fracture which will suit Indian population.

KEY WORDS: Adult femora, Neck and trochanters, Proximal femur, Femoral neck fracture.


  1. Standring S, Vishy Mahadevan. Pelvic girdle and lower limb. Gray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice. 40th ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2008;1360-1365
  2. Ravichandran, N Muthukumaravel, R. Jaikumar, Das H, Rajendran M. Pxoximal femoral geometry in Indians and its clinical applications.J.Anat. Soc.India 2011;60(1):6-12
  3. Taner Z, Khalil A M. An Analysis of Anatolian Human Femur Anthropometry. Turk J Med Sci. 2002;32:231-235.
  4. Mishra AK, Chalise P, singh RP and Shah RK. The proximal femur- a second look at rational of implant designNepal Med Coll J 2009;11(4):278-280.
  5. De Sousa E, Fernandes R. M. P., Mathias M B, Rodrigues MR, Ambram  J. & Babinski  M.  A Morphometric study of the proximal femur extremity in Brazilians. Int. J. Morphol., 2010;28(3):835-840.
  6. BaharuddinA M Y, Kadir R A, Zulkifly A H, Saat A, Aziz  A A & Lee M. Morphology study of the proximal femur in Malay population. Int. J. Morphol., 2011;29(4):1321-1325.
  7. Chowdhary S, Naushaba H, Chowdhury M,  KhanLF,  Gulsan Ara J. Morphometric study of fully ossified head and neck diameter of the human left femur J. Dhaka National Med. Coll. Hos. 2012;18 (02):9-13.
  8. Osorio H; Schorwer K.; Coronado C; Delgado J, & Aravena P. Proximal femoral epiphysis anatomy in Chilean population. Orthopedic and forensic aspects. Int. J. Morphol. 2012;30(1):258-262.
  9. Gujar S, Vikani S, Parmar J, Bondre K.V. A correlation between femoral neck shaft angle to femoral neck length. IJBAR;2013:04(05):295-298.

Cite this article: Mrunal Muley, Pritha Bhuiyan. MORPHOMETRIC STUDY OF NECK OF DRY ADULT FEMORA. Int J Anat Res 2017;5(3.2):4317-4320. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2017.321