Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 8; Issue 4.2 (December 2020)

Page No.: 7794-7798

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2020.179


Mbaka G.O.

Department of Anatomy, Lagos State University College of Medicine, Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria.

Address for Correspondence: Mbaka, G.O.  (Ph.D.), Department of Anatomy, Lagos State University College of Medicine, PMB, 21266, 1-5 Oba Akinjobi Street, Ikeja, Nigeria. E-Mail: mbaaka2gm@gmail.com


Introduction. Adductor hiatus (AH), an osseo- muscular or osseo- fibrous space between adductor magnus muscle or aponeurosis and the shaft of femur has been classified into four different types. The interest in the hiatus is due to the large vascular structures that traverses the hiatus which is of concern to the surgeons.

Materials and Methods: A total of 61 embalmed cadavers (102 limbs), 35 female lower limbs and 67 male lower limbs were dissected to show AH.

Results: The bridging fibrous which shows the highest frequency was observed in 44 limbs. It exhibited incidence of 43.1% prevalence of AH shape on both sexes. The incidence in male was 27.5% while in female it was 15.7%. The bridging muscular type, the least occurrence shows incidence of 17.6% in both sexes; in males, 13.7% and in females, 3.9%. Oval fibrous type shows a prevalence of 20.5% in both sexes, 12.7% in males and 7.8% in females. Oval muscular type shows 18.6% incidence in both sexes. In males, 11.8% and in females, 6.9%. The distance from the apex of AH to the adductor tubercle was measured and shows a range of 5.0cm-17.0cm with a mean distance of 10.3cm.

Conclusion: The result of this study showed that bridging fibrous AH type exhibited the highest prevalence depicting variation from another racial study. Therefore to adopt an appropriate surgical intervention in a situation of adductor canal outlet syndrome, the surgeon has to be aware of the population variations.

Key Words: Adductor hiatus, Adductor magnus, femoropopliteal compression, Nigerians.


[1]. Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMR. Clinically Oriented Anatomy 2018; 8th ed Wolters Kluwer: 709-716.
[2]. Olson SA, Holt BT. Anatomy of the medial distal femur: a study of the adductor hiatus. J Orthop Trauma 1995;9:63-65.
[3]. Kale A, Gayretli O, Oztürk A, Gürses IA, Dikici F, Usta A, et al. Classification and localization of the adductor hiatus: a cadaver study. Balkan Med J. 2012;29(4): 395-400.
PMid:25207041 PMCid:PMC4115878
[4]. Wensing PJW, Scholten FG, Buijs PC, Hartkamp MJ, Mali WPTM, Hillen B. Arterial tortuosity in the femoropopliteal region during knee flexion: a magnetic resonance angiographic study. J Anat. 1995;186:133-9.
[5]. Scholten FG, Mali WP, Hilen B, van Leeuwen MS. US location of the adductor canal hiatus: a morphologic study. Radiology. 1989; 172:75-8.
[6]. Garg K. PD Chaurasia’s Human Anatomy 2012; 5th Ed CBS Publishers: 54-60.
[7]. Dunlop GR, Dos Santos R. Adductor canal thrombosis. N Eng J Med. 1957; 256:557-80.
[8]. Scholten FG, Warnars GA, Mali WP, van Leeuwen MS. Femoro¬popliteal occlusions and the adductor canal hiatus, Duplex study. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1993; 7:680-3.
[9]. Palma EC. Hemodynamic arteriopathy. Angiology. 1959; 10:134-43.
[10]. Cohn SL, Taylor WC. Vascular problems of the lower extremity in athletes. Clin Sports med. 1990; 9: 449-70.

Cite this article: Mbaka G.O. PATTERNS OF ADDUCTOR HIATUS IN NIGERIANS: A CADAVERIC STUDY. Int J Anat Res 2020;8(4.2):7794-7798. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2020.179