Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 8; Issue 4.2 (December 2020)

Page No.: 7799-7804

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2020.224


Ishita Sengupta (Ghosh) 1, Madhumita Mahato 2, Gairik Sengupta *3, Jadab Chandra Chattopadhyay 4.

1 Assistant Professor, Dept of Anatomy, Medical College, Kolkata, India.

2 Senior Resident, Dept of Anatomy, Purulia Government Medical College & Hospital,  Kolkata, India.

*3 Associate Professor, Dept of Pharmacology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research, Kolkata, India.

4 Professor & Head, Dept of Anatomy, Medical College, Kolkata, India.

Address for correspondence: Dr. Gairik Sengupta, 15, Ramchandra Pally, Kolkata – 700008, India.  Phone no: 9874621539, E-Mail: drgairiksengupta@yahoo.co.in


Background: A good understanding of morphometric measurements of the proximal femur is essential in order to decrease the risk of complications associated with orthopedic surgeries performed in the proximal femur due to traumatic injury, metabolic or vascular causes, and to achieve proper alignment of prosthesis to be implanted. The purpose of this study is to evaluate morphometry of neck of femur in Eastern Indian population.

Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 50 dry adult femora [30 Right(R) and 20 Left(L)] available in the department of Anatomy of Medical College Kolkata, India.

Results: a) Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Vertical length of Head of femur was Right side: 38.56±2.50mm and Left side: 38.07±3.43mm. b) Mean and SD of Width of neck of femur was Right side: 28.84±2.71mm and Left side:28.09±2.29mm. c) Mean and SD of length of Neck of femur on anterior aspect was Right side:26.37±2.92mm and Left side:26.12±3.42mm. d) Mean and SD of length of Neck of femur on posterior aspect was Right side:31.65±2.75mm and Left side:26.69±3.11mm. e) Neck-shaft angle on both sides were calculated.

Conclusion: Indian dimensions of proximal end of femur are different as compared to that of the values in other parts of the world. Present study will be useful for crafting suitable implants used for surgical correction of fracture neck femur in East Indian population.

KEYWORDS: Morphometry, Neck-shaft angle, Implant, Prosthesis, Width of neck, Vertical length of head of femur, Length of neck.


[1]. Sandring S, Tubbs RS. Pelvic girdle, gluteal region and thigh. Gray’s Anatomy:The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice.41st ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone;2016;1348-1359 & 1379.
[2]. Joshi V R,Nair K S,Thaduri N,Gupta S D. Morphometric study of proximal end of femur in central Indian population. Int J Med Sci & Clinical Inventions 2017;4(2):2679-2681
[3]. Maheswari J, Annexure I, Orthopaedic instruments and implants. Essential Orthopaedics. 4th ed;2011.
[4]. Muley M, Bhuiyan P. Morphometric study of neck of dry adult femora. Int J Anat Res 2017;5(3.2):4317-4320.
[5]. Reikeras O, Hoiseth A. and Reigstad A, Fonstelien E. Femoral neck angles. Acta orthop. Scand. 1982;53:775-79.
[6]. Muley M, Bhuiyan P. Morphometric study of neck of dry adult femora. Int J Anat Res 2017;5(3.2):4317-4320
[7]. Baharuddin A M Y, Kadir R A,Zulkifly A H,Saat A,Aziz A A & Lee M. Morphometric study of the proximal femur in Malay population. Int. J. Morphol.,2011;29(4):1321-1325
[8]. Taner Z,Khali A M.An Analysis of Anatolian Human Femur Anthropometry.Turk J Med Sci. 2002;32:231-235.
[9]. De Sousa EB, Fernades RMP, Mathias MB, Rodrigues MR, Ambram AJ, Babinski MA. Morphometric study of the proximal femur. Int. J. Morphol.,2010;28(3):835-840.
[10]. 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
[11]. Umebese PF, Adeyekun A, Moin M. Radiological assessment of femoral neck-shaft & anteversion angles in adult Nigerian HIPS. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2005 Jun;12(2):106-9
[12]. Toogood PA, Skalak A, Cooperman DR. Proximal Femoral Anatomy in the Normal Human Population. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:876-85
PMid:18758876 PMCid:PMC2650061
[13]. Atkinson, H.D., Johal, K.S., Willis-Owen, C. et al. Differences in hip morphology between the sexes in patients undergoing hip resurfacing. J Orthop Surg Res 5, 76 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-76
PMid:20950444 PMCid:PMC2972264
[14]. Amith R, Beena N, Vinay KV. Morphometry of femoral neck shaft angle in dry femora of south India by computer assisted image analysis method. Int J Anat Res 2017;5(2.1):3753-3758

Cite this article: Ishita Sengupta (Ghosh), Madhumita Mahato, Gairik Sengupta, Jadab Chandra Chattopadhyay. A MORPHOMETRIC STUDY OF THE PROXIMAL END OF DRY ADULT FEMORA. Int J Anat Res 2020;8(4.2):7799-7804. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2020.224