Sexual Dimorphism of Bicondylar width of Femora
Sexual Dimorphism of Bicondylar width of Femora
Keywords:
Bicondylar width, Sexual dimorphism, FemurAbstract
Background: Sexual identification from the skeletal parts is very important medicllegaly as well as anthropologicaly. Present study aims to ascertain values of femoral bicondylar width and to evaluate its possible efficacy in determining correct sexual identification.Methods: Study sample consisted of 184 dry, normal, adult, human femora (136 male & 48 female) from skeletal collections of Anatomy department, M. P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar, Gujarat. Bicondylar width was considered as maximum distance between medial and lateral femoral condyle, measured with the Vernier caliper. Results: Mean Values obtained were, 76.84 and 72.34 for right male and female, and 76.64 and 72.84 for left male and female respectively. Higher value in male was statistically highly significant (P< 0.001) on both sides. Demarking point (D.P.) analysis of the data showed that right femora with bicondylar width more than 80.20 were definitely male and less than 65.50 were definitely female; while for left bones, femora with bicondylar width more than 80.76 were definitely male and less than 66.53 were definitely female. Conclusions: Bicondylar width identified 22.40% of right male femora and 14.49% of left male femora; it was not useful for female bone
References
2. Iscan M.Y. & Miller-Shaivitz P., Determination of sex from the femur in blacks and whites. Coll. Antropol. 1984; 8(2):169–75. as cited by King C.A. et al, 1998
3. Dittrick J. and Suchey J. M., Sex determination of prehistoric central California skeleton remains using discriminant analysis of the femur and humerus, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1986; 70: 3-9.
4. Singh S. P. and Singh S., The sexing of adult femora: Demarking points for Varanasi zone, Journal of the Indian Academy of Forensic Sciences 1972 B; 11:1- 6.
5. Iscan M.Y. and Shihai D., Sexual Dimorphism in the Chinese Femur. Forensic Science International June 1995; 74(1-2): 79-87.
6. Steyn M. and Iscan M. Y., Sex determination from the femur and tibia in South African whites, Forensic Science International 1997; 90: 111-119.
7. King C.A., Iscan M. Y. and Loth S.R., Metric and comparative analysis of sexual dimorphism in the Thai Femur. Journal of Forensic Science 1998; 43(5): 954–958.
8. Trancho G. J., Robledo, B., Lopez-Bueis I., and Sanchez S.A. Sexual determination of femur using discriminant function analysis of a Spanish population of known sex and age, Journal of Forensic Sciences 1997; 42:181-185.
9. Mall G. et al. Determination of sex from femora, Forensic Science International 2000; 113:315-321.
10. Purkait R. and Chandra H., Sexual Dimorphism in Femora: An Indian Study. Forensic Science Communications 2002 July; 4(3): 1-6.
11. Singh I.P. & Bhasin M.K., Manual of biological anthropology in Osteometry, 1`st Edition, Kamla-Raj Prakashan, Delhi, 2004, pp: 79-83.
12. Indar Jit & Shamer Singh, The Sexing of the adult clavicles, Ind. Jour. Med. Res., june 1966; 54(6): 551-571.
13. William P.L., Warwick R, Dyson M, Bannister L.H., Gray’s Anatomy, in Osteology-Femur, 37`th Edition, Churchill Livingstone Edinburgh. 1989, pp: 434-439.
14. Pal G.P., Reliability of criteria used for sexing of hip bone. Journal of Anatomical Society of India. 2004; 53 (2): 58-60.
