Introduction: The proximal end of femur consists of head, neck, greater and lesser trochanters. Various pathologies of hip require surgical intervention either in the form of replacement or open reduction and internal fixation. The morphometric analysis of proximal end of femur is of immense importance in designing prosthesis and implants of appropriate size.

Materials and Methods: The present study was conducted in the department of Anatomy, VMMC, New Delhi on 76 dry adult fully ossified human femur bones. The parameters measured included femur length (FL), femur neck length (FNL), femur head diameter (FHD), femur neck diameter (FND), femur neck thickness (FNT) and cervicodiaphyseal angle (CDA). The mean and standard deviation of parameters were calculated. Unpaired t-test was used to assess statistically significant side dimorphism.

Results: The mean values of FL, FNL, FHD, FND, FNT and CDA were 41.626 ± 2.170 cm, 40.835 ± 3.023 mm,39.531 ± 2.966 mm, 40.973 ± 6.647 mm, 23.972 ± 2.488 and 135.592 ± 5.734 degrees respectively. Cervicodiaphyseal angle displayed statistically significant side dimorphism (0.0013), the measure being higher on right side as compared to left side.

Discussion: The present study provides values specific to Indian population that will help in designing of appropriate size prosthesis and implants needed for various orthopaedic procedures. Mismatched prosthesis results in complications including pain, osteolysis and aseptic loosening. Femur neck length and diameter also helps in choosing the appropriate length and number of cancellous screws used for fixation of neck fractures.

1. Standring S. Gray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice. 41^st London: Elsevier.2016. Pelvic girdle, gluteal region and thigh. p. 1348-53.
2. Snell RS. Clinical Anatomy by Regions. 9^th South Asian edition. Wolter Kluwer. 2012. The Lower Limb.p.439-43.
3. Mc Grory J, Morrey BF, Chahalan TD, Kai- Nan AN, Cabanela ME, Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty J Bone Joint Surg 1995 77(B):865-69.
4. Verma M, Joshi S,Tuli A, Raheja S, Jain P, Srivastava P. Morphometry of Proximal Femur in Indian Population. J ClinDiagn Res. 2017; 11(2): 1-4.
5. Granger C, Schutte HD, Bigger SB, Kennedy JM, Latour RA, Failure analysis of composite femoral component for hip arthroplasty. J Rehab Res Develop 200340:131-46.
6. Vaidya SV, Ranawat CS, Aroojis A, Laud NS, Anthropometric measurements to design total knee prostheses for the Indian population J Arthroplasty 200015:79-85.
7. Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JM, Esteve P, RoguinBD,The morphology of the proximal femur: a three dimensional radiographic analysis J bone Joint Surg B 1992 74(1):28-32.
8. Siwach RC, Dahiya S. Anthropometric study of proximal femur geometry and its clinical application. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 200337(4):247-51.
9. Reddy VS, Moorthy GV, Reddy SG. Do we need a special design of femoral component of total hip prosthesis in our patients? Ind J Orthop 199933:282-84.
10. Lin KJ, Wei HW, Lin KP, Tsai CL, Lee PY, Proximal femoral morphology and the relevance to design of anatomically precontoured plates: A study of the Chinese population. The Scientific World Journal. 2014:106941.
11. Baharuddin MY, Zulkifly AH, His M, Aziz AA, Three dimensional morphometry of the femur to design the total hip Arthroplasty for Malay Population Advanced Science Letters 201319 (10): 2982-87.
12. Cho HJ, Kwak DS, Kim IB, Morphometric evaluation of Korean Femur by geometric computation: comparisons of the sex and the population Biomed Research Int 2015 7:  305 -38.
13. Mahaisavariya B, Sitthiseripratip K, Tongdee T, Bohez EL, Vander SJ, Oris P, Morphological study of the proximal femur: A new method of geometrical assessment using three dimensional reverse engineering Med Engg Phys 2002 24(9):617-22.
14. Unnanuntana A, Toogood P, Hart D, Cooperman D, Grant RE, Evaluation of proximal femoral geometry using digital photographs Journal of Orthopaedic Research 201028:1399-404.
15. De Sousa E, Fernandes R, Mathias MB, Rodrigues MR, Ambram AJ, Babinski MA. Morphometric study of the proximal femur extremity in Brazilians Int J Morphol 201028(3):835-840.
16. Silva, V. J.; Oda, J. Y. & Sant'anna, D. M. G. Anatomical aspects of the proximal femur of adult braziliansInt J Morphol2003 21(4):303-8.
17. Canto, R. S. T.; Silveira, M. A.; Rosa, A. S.; Gomide, L. C. & Baraúna, M. A. Morfologiaradiográfica de quadril e pelve e suarelação com fraturasproximais do fêmurRev. Bras. Ortop2003 38(1/2):12-20.
18. Johnson JK, Renner JB, Dahners LE. Anteroposterior thickening of the femoral neck with aging decreases the offset in men Am J Sports Med 201240(10):2213-17.
19. El Kaissai S, Pasco JA, Henry MJ, Panahi S, Nicholson JG, Nicholson GC, et al, Femoral neck geometry and hip fracture risk: the Geelong osteoporosis study Osteoporosis Int200516:1299-1303.
20. Calis HT, Eryavuz M, Calis M, Comparison of femoral geometry among cases with and without hip fractures Yonsei Med J 200445:901-07.
21. Bhattacharya S, Chakraborty P, Mukherjee A, Correlation between neck shaft angle of femur with age and anthropometry: A Radiographic study Indian Journal of basic and applied Medical Research 20143(3):100-07.

Dr Jasbir Kaur (MD, DNB, MNAMS Anatomy)

Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital