• Users Online: 25
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 69  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 201-206

Morphological side differences of the hemipelvis


1 Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, Graz, Austria
2 Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, AUVA Trauma Hospital Styria │, Graz, Göstinger Straße 24, Graz, Austria
3 Division of Macroscopic and Clinical Anatomy, Medical University of Graz, Harrachgasse 21, Graz, Austria
4 Department of Trauma Surgery, General Hospital Wolfsberg, Paul-Hackhofer-Straße 9, Wolfsberg, Austria
5 Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2, Graz, Austria
6 Department of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, Austria
7 Department of Trauma, Clinical Centre Wolfsburg, Sauerbruchstraße 7, Wolfsburg, Germany

Date of Submission23-Jul-2019
Date of Acceptance12-Oct-2020
Date of Web Publication29-Dec-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Gloria Maria Hohenberger
Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, 8036 Graz
Austria
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JASI.JASI_97_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Introduction: Differences of anatomical characteristics regarding side and gender have been the topic of interest in various recent studies. Studies have reported either significant or insignificant differences of the bony pelvis. The aim of this study was to evaluate possible gender and side differences of the pelvis in a cadaveric model. Material and Methods: Fifty human cadaver pelves, preserved by the use of Thiel's method, underwent measurement during this study. Diverse parameters were measured on both hemipelves by three surgeons. Analysis of the morphology of the acetabular cavity was performed by measuring its longitudinal, horizontal, and maximal diameters. Results: The distance between the anterior superior iliac spine and the posterior superior iliac spine (females: mean of 15.9 cm; males: mean of 16.9 cm) and the horizontal diameter of the acetabular cavity (females: mean of 4.5 cm; males: mean of 4.9 cm) were statistically significantly shorter in females than in males. The subpubic angle was significantly (P < 0.001) larger in females (mean 61.4°; standard deviation [SD] 11.02°; range 37°–82°) when compared to males (mean 45.5°; SD 7.48°; range 35°–60°). The vertical diameter of the obturator foramen was significantly (P = 0.002) smaller for the right (mean 3.1; SD 0.56; range 1.9–4.6) in comparison to the left side (mean 3.4; SD 0.57; range 2.5–5.2). Discussion and Conclusion: Overall, a clear gender difference was observed for typical gender-specific parameters, whereas the anatomy of the hemipelves showed no relevant side differences.

Keywords: Gender differences, hemipelvis, morphologic differences, pelvis, side differences


How to cite this article:
Hohenberger GM, Schwarz AM, Weiglein AH, Kuchling S, Hauer G, Berzins U, Holter M, Grechenig C, Krassnig R, Gänsslen A. Morphological side differences of the hemipelvis. J Anat Soc India 2020;69:201-6

How to cite this URL:
Hohenberger GM, Schwarz AM, Weiglein AH, Kuchling S, Hauer G, Berzins U, Holter M, Grechenig C, Krassnig R, Gänsslen A. Morphological side differences of the hemipelvis. J Anat Soc India [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 21];69:201-6. Available from: https://www.jasi.org.in/text.asp?2020/69/4/201/305381




  Introduction Top


Differences of anatomical characteristics regarding side and gender have been the topic of interest in various recent studies.

Macedo and Magee,[1] as well as Moromizato et al.[2] found statistically significant differences regarding the passive range of motion between dominant and nondominant sides in several joints. Bonneau et al.[3] examined 91 adult femora and evaluated an increased anteversion of the femoral neck in women compared to men. In Rouleau et al.'s[4] radiologic study concerning the proximal ulna dorsal angulation, this was significantly decreased on left female extremities compared to male elbow joints. Chanplakorn et al.[5] conducted a computed tomographic (CT) analysis of 740 pedicles concerning the cervical vertebral segments three to seven. The authors did not find significant differences during side comparison; however, male cervical pedicles showed larger dimensions of some studied parameters compared to females in their sample. Yu et al.[6] found an increased pedicle height and width in the thoracic vertebral segments 1–6 in 503 specimens, whereas Chawla et al.[7] stated no significant side differences regarding the third lumbar vertebra.

Some studies have also reported either significant or insignificant differences of the bony pelvis.[8],[9],[10] The aim of this study was to evaluate possible gender and side differences of the pelvis in a cadaveric model.


  Materials and Methods Top


Dissection and measurement

A total of 50 pelves from adult human cadavers donated to science, embalmed with Thielxs method,[11] were evaluated. All investigated cadavers were donated to the Department of Macroscopic and Clinical Anatomy of the Medical University of Graz under the approval of the Anatomical Donation Program of the University of Graz and according to the Austrian law for donations. Twenty-eight were from male and 22 from female body donors. None of the specimens had signs of previous fractures or malformations. After removal of the surrounding soft tissues and bilateral enucleation of the hip joints, measurements in centimeters were conducted on both hemipelves using a digital caliper. Three surgeons individually measured several parameters [Figure 1] and [Figure 2], and the mean of their results was assessed.
Figure 1: Measurement pattern. The pelvis is depicted from the ventral (a) and dorsal sides (b)

Click here to view
Figure 2: Evaluation of the acetabulum

Click here to view


Detailed analysis of the morphology of the acetabular cavity was performed by measuring its long, horizontal, and maximal diameters [Figure 2].

In addition, the thickness of the acetabular fossa, was measured (in millimeters), and the anterior acetabular ridge shape was morphologically classified as either straight, curved, or irregular [Figure 3]. The acetabular depth was evaluated by the placement of a ruler across its diameter and measurement of the distance between the deepest part of the acetabular cavity and the ruler.
Figure 3: Variations of the anterior acetabular ridge's shape (a) straight, (b) curved, (c) irregular

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

All measurements were exported into Microsoft Excel sheets (Microsoft Excel 2010; Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software (version 22.0; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). For descriptive statistic mean ± standard deviation (SD), median, minimum, and maximum were calculated. For side comparison, dependent t-tests were conducted and for gender comparison, a repeated ANOVA measurement was conducted, including gender as within-subject effect. By the use of Bonferroni correction, a value of P < 0.002 for side and gender differences was regarded as statistically significant.




  Results Top


The distance between the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) and the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) showed a mean of 16.9 cm in males (SD 1.10; range 14.3–19.4) and 15.9 cm in females (SD 0.99; range 13.50–17.40, respectively. Repeated measurement ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between sexes (P = 0.001). The horizontal diameter of the acetabular cavity was significantly (P = 0.002) shorter in females (mean 4.5; SD 0.38; range 3.1–5.3) than in males (mean 4.9; SD 0.42; range 4.1–5.9). In addition, the subpubic angle was significantly larger in females (mean 61.4°; SD 11.02°; range 37°–82°) compared to males (mean 45.5°; SD 7.48°; range 35°–60°), (P < 0.001), [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Difference of subpubic angle in a female (a) and male (b) pelvis

Click here to view


Regarding side differences, the vertical diameter of the obturator foramen was significantly (P = 0.002) smaller for the right (mean 3.1; SD 0.56; range 1.9–4.6) in comparison to the left side (mean 3.4; SD 0.57; range 2.5–5.2).

Statistically insignificant differences regarding gender and sides are presented in [Table 1] and [Table 2].
Table 1:

Click here to view
Table 2:

Click here to view


The anterior acetabular ridge's shape was straight in 57 hemipelves, curved in 36 and irregular in seven specimens. In 14 pelves, their hemipelves showed different patterns, whereas eleven of these had a combination of a curved and straight ridge and further three pelves had an irregular and a curved form.




  Discussion Top


Possible side and gender differences have been under discussion in various articles.

Boulay et al.[8] performed measurements by the use of an electromagnetic device which provided three-dimensional spatial coordinate measurements in twelve anatomical specimens. During this analysis, 349 different targets, including angles and distances, were checked in detail for side differences. On the right side, the main axis of the obturator foramen was significantly larger compared to the left side. This was comparable to the presented sample with a significantly smaller vertical diameter (P = 0.002) on the right (mean 3.1 cm) compared to the left side (mean 3.4 cm).

The distance between the ASIS and the PSIS showed no side differences which was also observed by Boulay et al.[8] However, a statistically significant difference (P = 0.001) between the sexes was observed in the present study between ASIS and PSIS (males: 16.9 cm; females: 15.9 cm).

Among other characteristics, Ma et al.[12] evaluated the acetabular depth in 100 patients by routine CT scans. They found a significant difference between male and female specimens in both coronal (2.1 vs. 1.8 cm) and axial (2.5/2.6 vs. 2.3 cm) planes but no differences regarding side.

Zeng et al.[10] in a CT analysis reported that the acetabular depth was significantly smaller in women (left: 1.74 cm; right: 1.73 cm) than in men (left: 1.94 cm; right: 1.93 cm). However, further statistical tests did not reveal significant differences when the acetabular depth was adjusted for individual body height.

Chauhan et al.[13] found a significant gender difference between both acetabular depths (males: left: 28.18 mm, right: 27.49 mm; females: left: 25.70 mm, right: 24.68 mm). In contrast, our results only showed a tendency of a larger acetabular depth compared to previous studies. No gender difference (female: 3.11 cm; male: 3.39 cm) or side difference (left: 3.27 cm; right: 3.27 cm) was observed.

However, the horizontal diameter of the acetabular cavity was significantly shorter in females (mean 4.5 cm) than in males (mean 4.9 cm). Chauhan et al.[13] observed a slight significant difference between sexes on the right side (males: right: 4.71 cm, left: 4.75 cm; females: right: 4.44 cm, left: 4.60 cm). These results were comparable to the presented values.

In a noncomparable analysis of the morphology of the anterior acetabular ridge's shape in 154 hip joints by Taştekın Aksu et al.,[14] the shape was found to be curved in 46.1%, straight in 23.3%, angular in 16.8%, and irregular in 13.6%. Thoudam and Chandra.[15] and Vyas et al.[16] found the curved form to be most common with 60%. In our sample, the straight form was most present in even 57%, although the occurrence of this form has been reported in a low range of 4%–4.5%[15] up to 31.6%.[16] However, these highly varying results may be due to interobserver variability.

Not surprisingly, we also observed a significantly larger subpubic angle in females (mean 61.4°; SD 11.02°; range 37°–82°) in comparison to males (mean 45.5°; SD 7.48°; range 35°–60°). Igbigbi and Nanono-Igbigbi[17] observed higher values for their Ugandan collective with a mean of 116.1° (range: 75–155) for females and 93.9° (range: 50–140) in males in a radiologic study. Small et al.[18] reported an average angle of 84.1° (range: 52.5–100.2) in females and of 63.9° in males (45.3–93.2) black South Africans. Since our sample consisted of Caucasian specimens, varying values may be the result of racial differences.


  Conclusion Top


Overall, a clear gender difference was observed for typical gender-specific parameters, whereas the anatomy of the hemipelves showed no relevant side differences. In contrast, Boulay et al.[8] found some differences, which were clinically unimportant due to their large sample size. The results in the present study indicate that gender and side differences may be neglected during preoperative planning of the acetabular component for total hip arthroplasty or during the use of prebended plates during acetabular osteosynthesis.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Macedo LG, Magee DJ. Differences in range of motion between dominant and nondominant sides of upper and lower extremities. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008;31:577-82.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Moromizato K, Kimura R, Fukase H, Yamaguchi K, Ishida H. Whole-body patterns of the range of joint motion in young adults: Masculine type and feminine type. J Physiol Anthropol 2016;35:23.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bonneau N, Libourel PA, Simonis C, Puymerail L, Baylac M, Tardieu C, et al. A three-dimensional axis for the study of femoral neck orientation. J Anat 2012;221:465-76.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Rouleau DM, Faber KJ, Athwal GS. The proximal ulna dorsal angulation: a radiographic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19:26-30.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Chanplakorn P, Kraiwattanapong C, Aroonjarattham K, Leelapattana P, Keorochana G, Jaovisidha S, et al. Morphometric evaluation of subaxial cervical spine using multi-detector computerized tomography (MD-CT) scan: The consideration for cervical pedicle screws fixation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014;15:125.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Yu CC, Bajwa NS, Toy JO, Ahn UM, Ahn NU. Pedicle morphometry of upper thoracic vertebrae: An anatomic study of 503 cadaveric specimens. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39:E1201-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Chawla K, Sharma M, Abhaya A, Kochhar S. Morphometry of the lumbar pedicle in North West India. Eur J Anat 2011;15:155-61.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Boulay C, Tardieu C, Bénaim C, Hecquet J, Marty C, Prat-Pradal D, et al. Three-dimensional study of pelvic asymmetry on anatomical specimens and its clinical perspectives. J Anat 2006;208:21-33.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Buller LT, Rosneck J, Monaco FM, Butler R, Smith T, Barsoum WK. Relationship between proximal femoral and acetabular alignment in normal hip joints using 3-dimensional computed tomography. Am J Sports Med 2012;40:367-75.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Zeng Y, Wang Y, Zhu Z, Tang T, Dai K, Qiu S. Differences in acetabular morphology related to side and sex in a Chinese population. J Anat 2012;220:256-62.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Thiel W. The presentation of the whole corpse with natural color. Ann Anat 1992;174:185-95.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Ma H, Han Y, Yang Q, Gong Y, Hao S, Li Y, et al. Three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction measurements of acetabulum in Chinese adults. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2014;297:643-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Chauhan R, Paul S, Dhaon BK. Anatomical parameters of north Indian hip joints – Cadaveric study. J Anat Soc India 2002;51:39-42.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Taştekın Aksu F, Gülrız Çerı N, Arman C, Tetık S. Morphology and morphometry of the acetabulum. CİLT 20.2006; SAYI 3:143-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Thoudam B, Chandra P. Acetabulum-morphological and morphometrical study. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci 2014;5:793-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Vyas K, Shroff B, Zanzrukiya K. An osseous study of morphological aspect of acetabulum of hip bone. Int J Res Med 2013;2:78-82.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Igbigbi PS, Nanono-Igbigbi AM. Determination of sex and race from the subpubic angle in Ugandan subjects. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2003;24:168-72.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Small C, Brits DM, Hemingway J. Quantification of the subpubic angle in South Africans. Forensic Sci Int 2012;222:395.e1-6.  Back to cited text no. 18
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed613    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded123    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal