Type of Article:  Original

Volume 7; Issue 2.1 (April 2019)

Page No.: 6353-6360

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2019.118


Kanika Sachdeva *1, Rajan Kumar Singla 2, Gurdeep Kalsey 3.

*1 Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, SGRDIMSAR, Amritsar, Punjab, India.

2 Professor & Head, Department of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India.

3 Retired Professor & Head, Department of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab, India.

Correspondence: Dr Kanika Sachdeva, Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, SGRDIMSAR, Amritsar, Punjab, India.+91-9888284878 E Mail: kanikadr.sarang@yahoo.com


Background: Skeleton is an excellent investigating material in living and non-living population for genetic, anthropological and forensic purposes. Anatomical knowledge of human osteology, in the evaluation of death may help to shed light on legal issues such as sex and age determination, parentage and racial identity.  With racial differences,  it’s difficult to implement a uniform method for determining sex. Therefore, the need for present study  was felt. Many bones of skeleton present size related sexual differences, those of the pelvis usually displayed differences in morphology independent of size as the sex hormones influence the reproductive functions. In the present study an attempt has been made study to arrive at appropriate metric data, regarding sex determination of North Indian pelves using indices calculated upon dry hip bones, sacrum & pelvis as a whole.

Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 50 adult pelvis (M: F= 40:10) obtained from Government Medical College, Amritsar. Measurements related to Pelvic Brim Index, Coxal Index, Index I & Index II of Greater Sciatic Notch, Ischiopubic Index, Sacral index, Longitudinal Curvature index & Corporobasal index were taken by standardized methods, indices were calculated & results were statistically analyzed.

Results: Amongst the various indices calculated in present study Coxal Index, Index I & Index II of Greater Sciatic Notch, Ischiopubic Index & Sacral index were found to be significantly sexually dimorphic.

Conclusions: Since skeletal characteristics vary among populations; therefore the present study provides a database for various significant pelvis related indices amongst North Indian population to optimize the accuracy of sex identification.

Key words: Sexual dimorphism, Forensic, Anthropologists, Orthopaedicians, Hip bone, Pelvis, Sacrum, Index.


  1. Holobinko A. Forensic human identification in the United States and Canada: A review of the law, admissible techniques, and the legal implications of their application in forensic cases. Forensic Sci Int 2012; 222(1):394.
  2. Lake A, James H, Berketa J. Disaster victim identification: quality management from an odontology perspective. Forensic  Sci, Med and Pathol 2012; 8(2):157-63.
  3. Schuliar Y, Knudsen PJT. Role of forensic pathologists in mass disasters. For Sci, Med and Pathol  2012; 8(2):164-73.
  4. Dixit SG, Kakar S, Agarwal S, Choudhry R. Sexing of human hip bones of Indian origin by discriminant function analysis. J Forensic Leg Med 2007;14(7):42
  5. Kamal AHM, Ara S, Begum S, Hoque M & Khatun K. Sexual Dimorphism in Alar Length and Auricular Index of Sacrum. Bangladesh J Anat 2014; 12(1): 17-21.
  6. Shah T, Patel M, Nath S, Menon SK. A model for construction of height and sex from shoulder width, arm length and foot length by regression method. J Forensic Sci & Criminology. 2015; 3(1):102.
  7. Rao CR. In: Advanced statistical method in biometric research. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. London; 1962:291-296.
  8. Trancho I, Robledo B, Bueis I, Sanchez A. Sexual determination of femur using discriminant functions: Analysis of a Spanish population of known sex and age. J Forensic Sci 1997; 42(2):181-185.
  9. Abitbol MM. Obstetrics and posture in pelvic anatomy. J Hum Evol 1987; 16: 243–255.
  10. Schultz AH. Sex differences in the pelvis of primates. Amer J Phys Anthropol 1949; 7: 401–423.
  11. Tague RG. Sexual dimorphism in the human bony pelvis, with a consideration of the Neandertal pelvis from Kebara Cave, Israel. Amer J Phys Anthropol 1992; 88: 1–21.
  12. Drake RL, Vogl W, Mitchell AWM. Pelvis and perineum. In: Gray’s Anatomy for students. London: Elsevier Churchil Livingston 2005:386-87.
  13. Steyn M and Işcan MY. Metric sex determination from the pelvis in modern Greeks. Forensic Sci Int 2008;179(1):86.e1-6
  14. Williams and Warwick. In: Gray’s Anatomy 38th edn; 1995:528-31.
  15. Issac B. Biometry of the posterior border of the human hip bone: normal values and their use in sex determination. J Anat Soc India 2002; 51: 43-46.
  16. Joshi UU et al. Various sacral indices: role in study of sexual dimorphism. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016;4(3):841-846
  17. Franklin D, Freedman L, Milne N. Sexual dimorphism and discriminant function sexing in indigenous South African crania. HOMO-J Comparative Hum Biol 2005; 55(3):213-28.
  18. Franklin D, Cardini A, Oxnard CE. A geometric morphometric approach to the quantification of population variation in sub Saharan African crania. Amer J Hum Biol 2010; 22(1):23-35.
  19. Turner W. The index of pelvic brim as a basis of classification. J Anat Physiol Lond 1886; 20: 125-43
  20. Davivongs V. The pelvic girdle of the Australian Aborigine; sex differences and sex determination. Am J Phys Anthropol 1963; 21: 443-56.
  21. Seidler H. Sex-diagnosis of isolated os coxae by discriminant functions. J Human Evol 1980; 9: 597-600.
  22. Stewart TD. Hrdlicka’s Practical Anthropolometry. 4th Philadelphia, Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 1952: 127-132.
  23. Jovanovic S and Zivanovic S. The establishment of the sex by the great sciatic notch. Acta Anat 1965; 61: 101-107.
  24. Day MH, Wilmott RW. Sexual differentiation in the innominate bone studied by multivariate analysis. Annals Human Biol 1975; 21: 143-151.
  25. Singh S, Potturi BR. Greater sciatic notch in sex determination. J Anat 1978; 125(3): 619-624.
  26. MacLaughlin SM, Bruce MF. The sciatic notch/acetabular index as a discriminator of sex in European skeletal remains. J Forensic Sci 1986; 31(4): 1380-1390.
  27. Thieme FP. Sex in Negro skeletons. J Forensic Med 1957; 4(2): 72-84. Cited by Krogman WM. Sexing skeletal remains: Sex differences in the pelvis. In: The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Springfield, Illinos, USA: Charles C Thomas; 1962: 122-142.
  28. Wilder HH. A laboratory Manual of Anthropometry. Philadelphia P, Blakistan 1920. Cited by Davivongs V. The pelvic girdle of the Australian Aborigine; sex differences and sex determination. Am J Phys Anthropol 1963; 21: 443-56.
  29. Beitrage zur Anatomie des Kreuzbeines. Morphol Jahrs 1908; 38: 323-447.
  30. Fawcett E. The sexing of human sacrum. J Anat 1938; 72: 633.
  31. Orford M. The pelvis of Bush race. S Afr J Sci 1934; 31: 586-610. Cited by Heyns OS. A study of Bantu female pelvis. J Anat Lond 1944; 73: 151-165.
  32. Young M and Ince JGH. A radiographic comparison of the male and female pelvis. J Anat 1940; 74: 374-85.
  33. Jordaan HVF. The differential development of the hominid pelvis. S Afr Med J 1976; 50: 744-748.
  34. Siddapur KR et al. Int J Res Med Sci. 2014 Nov;2(4):1526-1529
  35. Washburn SL. Sex differences in the pubic bone. Am J Phys Anthropol 1948; (6): 199-207.
  36. Washburn SL. Sex differences in the pubic bone of Bantu and Bushman. Am J Phys Anthropol 1949; (7): 425-432.
  37. Raju PB, Singh S, Padmanabhan R. Sex determination and sacrum. J Anat Soc Ind 1980; 30(1): 13-15.
  38. Ahankari RS & Ambali MP. Sexual Dimorphism in Human Sacrum in Maharshtra Population.  Ind J  Clin Anat  Physiol 2016;3(1):91-96.

Cite this article: Kanika Sachdeva, Rajan Kumar Singla, Gurdeep Kalsey. METRIC ANALYSIS OF SEXUAL DIMORPHISM IN NORTH INDIAN PELVIC INDICES. Int J Anat Res 2019;7(2.1):6353-6360. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2019.118