1- Department of Anatomy, Goa Medical College, Bambolim, Goa, India
2- Department of Anatomy, Goa Medical College, Bambolim, Goa, India ,jai123krishnan@gmail.com
2- Department of Anatomy, Goa Medical College, Bambolim, Goa, India ,
Abstract: (201 Views)
Background: The morphometry of the proximal humerus holds substantial clinical relevance due to the frequent occurrence of shoulder joint dislocations and proximal humeral fractures in everyday life. This study aims to investigate the potential differences in various parameters of the proximal humerus between the right and left sides. The specific objectives include: (1) To measure and analyze a range of morphometric parameters of the proximal end of the humerus, and (2) to determine if statistically significant differences exist between these parameters when comparing the left and right humeri.
Methods: Sixty adult dry humeri (31 left and 29 right), confirmed to be skeletally mature via epiphyseal closure, were subjected to osteometric analysis. The following linear and circumferential dimensions were recorded: Mean humeral length (MHL), humeral head vertical diameter (HHVD), humeral head transverse diameter (HHTD), anatomical neck circumference (ANC), surgical neck circumference (SNC), the linear distance between the highest point on the humeral head and the most proximal point of the greater tubercle (HHGT), and the distance from the lateral lip to the medial lip of the bicipital groove width (BGW). An osteometric board, digital vernier callipers, a measuring scale, and colored thread were employed for these measurements. Statistical analysis of the collected data was performed using the independent samples t-test within SPSS software, version 24.
Results: The MHL on the left side was measured to be 309 ± 14 mm, while it was 311 ± 16.5 mm on the right side. The mean HHVD was 40.54 ± 3.1 mm on the left and 40.38 ± 3.51 mm on the right. The mean HHTD was 37.84 ± 3.52 mm for the left humerus and 38.2 ± 3.8 mm for the right humerus.The mean ANC was measured as 126.9 ± 7.4 mm on the left humerus and 128.9 ± 11.2 mm on the right humerus. The mean SNC was found to be 83.2 ± 6.7 mm on the left side and 87.4 ± 9.7 mm on the right side.The mean HHGT was 10.64 ± 1.27 mm on the left and 11.06 ± 0.98 mm on the right. Furthermore, the mean BGW, measured from the lateral to the medial lip, was 8.94 ± 1.64 mm on the left and 9.37 ± 1.6 mm on the right.
Conclusion: The morphometric analysis of the proximal humeral epiphysis will constitute the foundational data for the fabrication of prosthetic devices specifically tailored for the Indian demographic. Furthermore, this information may hold significant relevance for professionals in radiology, anthropology, forensic science, and orthopaedic surgery.
Methods: Sixty adult dry humeri (31 left and 29 right), confirmed to be skeletally mature via epiphyseal closure, were subjected to osteometric analysis. The following linear and circumferential dimensions were recorded: Mean humeral length (MHL), humeral head vertical diameter (HHVD), humeral head transverse diameter (HHTD), anatomical neck circumference (ANC), surgical neck circumference (SNC), the linear distance between the highest point on the humeral head and the most proximal point of the greater tubercle (HHGT), and the distance from the lateral lip to the medial lip of the bicipital groove width (BGW). An osteometric board, digital vernier callipers, a measuring scale, and colored thread were employed for these measurements. Statistical analysis of the collected data was performed using the independent samples t-test within SPSS software, version 24.
Results: The MHL on the left side was measured to be 309 ± 14 mm, while it was 311 ± 16.5 mm on the right side. The mean HHVD was 40.54 ± 3.1 mm on the left and 40.38 ± 3.51 mm on the right. The mean HHTD was 37.84 ± 3.52 mm for the left humerus and 38.2 ± 3.8 mm for the right humerus.The mean ANC was measured as 126.9 ± 7.4 mm on the left humerus and 128.9 ± 11.2 mm on the right humerus. The mean SNC was found to be 83.2 ± 6.7 mm on the left side and 87.4 ± 9.7 mm on the right side.The mean HHGT was 10.64 ± 1.27 mm on the left and 11.06 ± 0.98 mm on the right. Furthermore, the mean BGW, measured from the lateral to the medial lip, was 8.94 ± 1.64 mm on the left and 9.37 ± 1.6 mm on the right.
Conclusion: The morphometric analysis of the proximal humeral epiphysis will constitute the foundational data for the fabrication of prosthetic devices specifically tailored for the Indian demographic. Furthermore, this information may hold significant relevance for professionals in radiology, anthropology, forensic science, and orthopaedic surgery.
Article Type: Research |
Subject:
Basic medical sciences
References
1. Drake Richard, Vogl W, Mitchelle Adam, Tibbitts R, Richardson P, Gray H. Gray's Anatomy for Students. 3rd ed. Philadelphia:Churchill Livingstone Elsevier;2015. p.704 [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
2. Maheshwari J, Mhaskar VA. Essential orthopaedics. 5th ed. Delhi:Jaypee brothers;2015. p.93 [View at Publisher]
3. Prasad NC, Shivashankarappa A, Pavan PH, Shruthi BN, Saheb SH. A study on segments of humerus and its clinical importance. International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences. 2017;3(4k):752-4. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
4. Rai R, Chawla M. Morphometry of adult humerus bone in Moradabad region. IJBAR. 2014;05(03):163-5. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5. Jaiswal P, Kumar Verma R. Analysis of morphometric segments of humerus with clinical relevance in Rajasthan region. Int J Med Sci Educ. 2019;6(2):121-7. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
6. Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMR. Clinically oriented anatomy . 8th ed. Philadelphia:Wolters Kluwer;2018. p.815 [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
7. Prashant KU, Pai MM, Murlimanju BV, Prabhu LV, Prameela MD. Estimation of the humerus length by its proximal segments: A South Indian anatomical study. J Morphol Sci. 2019;36(02):067-71. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8. Jahan S, Srivastava R. Morphometric study of proximal end of humerus in North Indian population. JMSCR . 2020 Aug;08(08):102-6. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9. Kabakci A, Buyukmumcu M, Yilmaz MT, Cicekcibasi AE, Akın D, Cihan E. An Osteometric Study on Humerus. Int J Morphol. 2017;35(1):219-26. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10. Sinha P, LakhiBhutia K, Tamang KB. Morphometric measurements of segments in dry humerus. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2017;6(67):4819-22. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11. Chatterjee M, Sinha I, Poddar R, Ghosal AK. Humeral morphometrics: A study in Eastern Indian Population. IJAR. 2017;5(4.1):4454-69. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12. Ashutosha A, Deepali RK, Ajay C, BH B, Ashish B. Morphometric analysis and surgical anatomy of proximal humerus. IJAR. 2017;5(3.1):4056-62. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13. Rajani S, Man S. Review of bicipital groove morphology and its analysis in North Indian population. ISRN Anat. 2013;2013:243780. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
14. Rajan YS, Sampath Kumar SK. Morphometric study on bicipital groove among South Indian population. JCDR. 2016;10(7):AC01-3. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).