Proximal Femoral Anatomy in the Normal Human Population

Toogood, Paul; Skalak, Anthony; Cooperman, Daniel R.

doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0473-3

Cited by 208 publications

(209 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

171

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Measurements of the ape femora were compared with measurements of 375 human femora, as published earlier [17]. These femora were randomly selected from the 3000 skeletons of the Hamann-Todd collection at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and represent 375 femora from the normal human population.…”

Section: Human Specimensmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used the technique and terminology as described by Toogood et al [17]. Briefly, photographs were taken in two standardized positions, termed AP and lateral.…”

Section: Photographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perhaps surprisingly, a comprehensive quantitative description of human proximal femoral morphology and its variability was published only in 2009 [17]. Of particular interest for the definition of morphotypes is the shape of the proximal femur, which can be defined by the concavity of the head and neck junction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This attribute is determined not only by femoral head sphericity, but also by the dimension and position of the femoral head relative to the neck. In a sample of 375 human femora, Toogood et al [17] found variability in concavity at the superior and anterior head-neck junction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used a standardized measurement technique [17] to compare 10 parameters of proximal femoral morphology between modern humans and the nonhuman apes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

What Ape Proximal Femora Tell Us About Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Comparison

Fikkers

Bouma

Boer

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Human hip morphology is variable, and some variations (or hip morphotypes) such as coxa profunda and coxa recta (cam-type hip) are associated with femoroacetabular impingement and the development of osteoarthrosis. Currently, however, this variability is unexplained. A broader perspective with background information on the morphology of the proximal femur of nonhuman apes is lacking. Specifically, no studies exist of nonhuman ape femora that quantify concavity and its variability. Questions/purposes We hypothesized that, when compared with modern humans, the nonhuman apes would show (1) greater proximal femoral concavity; (2) less variability in concavity; and (3) less sexual dimorphism in proximal femoral morphology. Methods Using identical methods, we compared 10 morphological parameters in 375 human femora that are part of the Hamann-Todd collection at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History with 210 nonhuman ape femora that are part of the collection of the Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium, and the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France. Results The nonhuman apes have larger proximal femoral concavity than modern humans. This morphology is almost uniform without large variability or large differences neither between species nor between sexes. Conclusions Variability is seen in human but not in nonhuman ape proximal femoral morphology. An evolutionary explanation can be that proximal femoral concavity is more important for the nonhuman apes, for example for climbing, than for modern humans, where a lack of concavity may be related to high loading of the hip, for example in running.

show abstract

Section: Human Specimensmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used the technique and terminology as described by Toogood et al [17]. Briefly, photographs were taken in two standardized positions, termed AP and lateral.…”

Section: Photographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used a standardized measurement technique [17] to compare 10 parameters of proximal femoral morphology between modern humans and the nonhuman apes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What Ape Proximal Femora Tell Us About Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Comparison

Fikkers

Bouma

Boer

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bones of the Lower Limb

Haffner

Conklin

2016

Bergman's Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Human Anatomic Variation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Femoral neck‐shaft angle and climate‐induced body proportions

Child

Cowgill

2017

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals who have relatively greater relative body mass do not necessarily have lower NSA. Population differences in NSA were found to be variable, while differences in RBM remained consistent across the developmental span. Taken together, these results suggest that regardless of body proportions, the degree of declination of NSA is presumed to be similar among individuals with similar gait and ambulatory behaviors. Conversely, populations differ in RBM from birth, and these differences are consistent throughout development. These two measures likely are responsive to diffing stimuli, and any potential relationship is likely complex and multifactorial.

show abstract

Proximal Femoral Anatomy in the Normal Human Population

Abstract: Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cited by 208 publications

References 20 publications

What Ape Proximal Femora Tell Us About Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Comparison

What Ape Proximal Femora Tell Us About Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Comparison

Bones of the Lower Limb

Femoral neck‐shaft angle and climate‐induced body proportions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About