Quick Links
How   to   cite   this   Article:    Kanika   Sachdeva,   Rajan   K   Singla,   Gurdeep   Kalsey.    ROLE   OF   SUBPUBIC   ANGLE   IN   SEXUAL   DIMORPHISM   &   ITS CLINICAL    IMPORTANCE:    A    MORPHOMETRIC    STUDY    IN    ADULT    HUMAN    BONY    PELVIS.     Int    J    Anatomy    Res    2016;4(4):3166-3169.    DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2016.430.
Type of Article: Original Research DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2016.430 Page No.:  3166-3169
ROLE   OF   SUBPUBIC   ANGLE   IN   SEXUAL   DIMORPHISM   &   ITS   CLINICAL   IMPORTANCE:   A   MORPHOMETRIC   STUDY   IN   ADULT   HUMAN BONY PELVIS Kanika Sachdeva * 1 , Rajan K Singla 2 , Gurdeep Kalsey 3 . *1 Assistant 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. Address   for   Correspondence:   Dr.    Kanika    Sachdeva,    Assistant    Professor,    Department    of    Anatomy,    SGRDIMSAR,    Amritsar,    Punjab,    India.    E-Mail:   kanikadr.sarang@yahoo.com ABSTRACT Background :   Identification   of   sexing   human   skeletal   remains   is   an   important   component   and   frequently   the   starting   point   of   many   forensic   anthropological investigations.   Skeletal   biologists   had   recognized   that   each   population   group   requires   its   own   specific   standards   for   accurate   determination   of   sex.   The pelvis   is   probably   the   most   accurate   bone   from   which   sex   can   be   determined.   The   subpubic   angles   show   more   definitive   sex   difference   indicating   the presence of interpopulation variations. Materials   and   Methods:    The   material   for   the   present   study   comprised   50   adult   human   pelvis   [M:   F=   40:10],   obtained   from   Department   of   Anatomy, Government Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab, India. Subpubic angle was measured for each pelvis using standard technique. Results:   The   results   obtained   were   tabulated,   statistically   analysed   &   compared   to   the   earlier   literature.   It   was   seen   that   in   line   with   earlier   studies   the subpubic angle was significantly more in females as compared to males. Conclusions:   It   is   widely   recognized   that   skeletal   characteristics   vary   among   populations,   thus   each   population   should   have   specific   standards   to   optimize the accuracy of identification. Hence this study has provided a baseline data of the values of subpubic angle in the North Indian population. KEY WORDS: Sexual Dimorphism, Pelvis, Subpubic Angle, Forensic. References 1 . Tague      RG.   Sexual   dimorphism   in   the   Human   bony   pelvis,   with   a   consideration   of   the   Neanderthal   pelvis   from   Kebara   cave,   Israel.   American   Journal   of Physical Anthropology 1992; 88: 1-21. 2 . Abitbol MM. Evolution of the ischial spine and of the pelvic floor in Hominoidea. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1988; 75: 53-67. 3 . Krogman WM and Iscan MY. The Human skeleton in Forensic Medicine. 2 nd  edition, Ch 6, Charles C. Thomas. Springfield, IL. pp 208-264. 4 . Duric    M,    Rokacevic    Z    and    Donic    D.    The    reliability    of    sex    determination    of    skeletons    from    forensic    context    in    the    Balkans.    Forensic    Science International. 2005; 147: 159-164. 5 . Keith M and Dalley A. 1999. Clinically Oriented Anatomy. 4 th  Edn., Lippincott Williams and Wilkins: pp: 331-332, 506. 6 . Harold E. Clinical Anatomy; A Revision and Applied anatomy for clinical students.5 th  Edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd., pp:119-124. 7 . Tague RG. Variations in pelvic size between male and females. Am J Physical Anthropol, 1989; 80: 59-71. 8 . Wilder   HH.   A   laboratory   manual   of   anthropometry.   Phialdelphia   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. 9 . Oladipo   GS,   Okoh   PD   and   Leko   B.   Radiologic   studies   of   pubic   length,   ischial   length   and   Ischio-pubic   index   of   adult   Kalabaris   and   Ikwerres   of   Nigeria. Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences. 2012; 3(2): 99-102. 1 0 . Gonzalez-    Reimers    E,    Velasco-    Vazquez    J    and    Arnay-de-la-    Rosa.    Sex    determination    by    discriminant    function    analysis    of    the    right    tibia    in    the prehispanic population of the Canary Islands. Forensic Science International. 2000; 108: 165-172. 1 1 . Turner W. The index of pelvic brim as a basis of classification. J Anat Physiol Lond 1886; 20: 125-43. 1 2 . Nicholson C. The interpretation of Radiological Pelvimetry. J Obstet Gynecol Brit Emp. 1938; XLV: 950-984. 1 3 . Young M and Ince JGH. A radiographic comparison of the male and female pelvis. J Anat 1940; 74: 374-85. 1 4 . Smout CFV. The articulated pelvis. In: The anatomy of female pelvis. London: Edward Arnold and Co; 1943: 12-20. 1 5 . Caldwell   WE   and   MoloyHC.   Anatomical   variations   in   the   female   pelvis   and   their   effect   in   labour   with   a   suggested   classification.   Am   J   Obstet   Gynecol 1933; 26: 479-505. 1 6 . Igbigbi   PS   &   Nanono-Igbigbi   AM.   Determination   of   sex   and   race   from   the   subpubic   angle   in   Ugandans.   Am   J   Forensic   Med   Pathol   2003;   24(2):   168- 171. 1 7 . Msamati   BC,   Igbigbi   PS   and   Manda   JK.   The   Subpubic   angle   in   Adult   Indigenous   Malawian   Subjects.   East   African   Medical   Journal   2005;   82(12):   643- 648. 1 8 . Oladipo GS. The subpubic angle in adult indigenous Nigerians. Trop J Med Res 2006; 10(1): 15-18. 1 9 . Oladipo   GS,   Ugboma   HAA   and   Suleiman   YA.   Comparative   study   of   the   Sub-pubic   angles   of   Adult   Ijawas   &   Igbos.   Asian   Journal   of   Medical   Sciences 2009; 1(2):26-29. 2 0 . Bryce   TH.   Bones   of   the   lower   limb:   Pelvic   Girdle.   In:   Schafer   EA,   Symington   J,   Bryce   TH,   editors.   Quains’s   Element   of   Anatomy.   11 th    ed.   39   Paternoster Row, London: Longmans, Green and Company; 1951: 168-174 2 1 . Heyns OS. A study of the Bantu female pelvis. J Anat Lond 1944; 78: 151-165. 2 2 . Boucher BJ. Sex differences in the Foetal Pelvis. American ournal of Physical Anthropol. 1957; 2: 51-54. 2 3 . Saunders   SR.   Juvenile   Skeletons   &   growth   related   studies.   In   Biological   anthropology   of   the   Human   Skeleton,   edited   by   MA.aS.   Katzenberg   SR Hoboken : A John Wilkey & Sons. 2 4 . Coleman WH. Sex differences in the Human Bony Pelvis. American Jounal of Physical Anthropology. 1969;31(2): 125-52. 2 5 . Frudinger   A,   Halligan   S,   Spencer   JA,   Bartram   CI,   Kamm   MA   and   Winter   R.   Influence   of   the   subpubic   arch   angle   on   anal   sphincter   trauma   &   anal incontinenbce following childbirth. BJOG. 2002; 109(11): 1207-12. 2 6 . Berger MB. Are Bony pelvis dimensions associated with Levator ani defects? A Case Control study. Int UrogynecolJ 2013; 24(8):1377-1383. 2 7 . Berger   MB,   Doumouchtsis   SK   and   DeLancey   JO.   Bony   pelvis   Dimensions   in   women   with   and   without   stress   Urinary   Incintinence.   Neurourol   Urodyn 2013; 32(1): 37-42.
Volume 4 |Issue 4.3 |  2016 Date of Publication:  31 December 2016