Comprehensive Morphometric Analysis Of Human Humerus Bones: Implications For Forensic And Clinical Applications

Authors

  • Ganpat Choudhary
  • Ramendra Kumar Raman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53555/jaz.v44i3.4776

Keywords:

Humerus, Morphometry, Foramina, Forensic Anthropology, Clinical Anatomy, Population-Specific Reference, Anatomical Variability, Correlation Analysis

Abstract

Background The morphometric analysis of human humerus bones provides critical insights into anatomical characteristics, which have significant implications for forensic identification, clinical applications, and anthropological research. Understanding the variability and correlations within humerus morphology is essential for developing population-specific reference standards and improving surgical outcomes. This study aims to provide a comprehensive morphometric analysis of human humerus bones, focusing on various anatomical parameters, the occurrence of foramina, and the correlations between different morphometric measurements. The goal is to contribute valuable data that can inform both forensic and clinical applications.

Methods A total of 100 human humerus bones (50 right and 50 left) were analyzed. Standardized protocols were followed to measure parameters including maximum humerus length (MHL), transverse diameter of the humeral head (TDHH), vertical diameter of the humeral head (VDHH), circumference of the surgical neck (GSN), bicipital groove length (BGL), bicipital groove width (BGW), bicipital groove depth (BGD), distance from humeral head to greater tubercle (HH-GT), distance from humeral head to surgical neck (HH-GSN), minimum diameter of the humerus diaphysis (MINDHB), maximum diameter of the humerus diaphysis (MAXDHB), and circumference length of the humerus diaphysis (CLHB). The presence of supratrochlear and nutrient foramina was also recorded. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

Results The mean length of the right humerus was 30.11 mm (±1.3), and the left humerus was 30.04 mm (±1.39). The mean weight of the right humerus was 114.05 g (±27.06), and the left humerus was 110.63 g (±34.14). Supratrochlear foramen was present in 16% of the specimens, while the nutrient foramen was absent in 4.4% of the sample. Moderate to weak correlations were observed between several parameters, such as humerus length and weight (r = 0.62, p < 0.05) and nutrient foramen localization and humerus length (r = 0.38, p < 0.05).

Conclusion This study provides a detailed morphometric analysis of human humerus bones, highlighting the variability and complex relationships within humerus morphology. These findings underscore the importance of establishing population-specific reference ranges for forensic and clinical purposes. The data contribute valuable insights that can inform forensic identification, enhance surgical precision, and support anthropological research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Ganpat Choudhary

Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, Ayurveda Campus, Institute of Medicine, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu

Ramendra Kumar Raman

Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, Kantipur Dental College Teaching Hospital and Research Centre, Kathmandu University, Kathmandu

References

Ubelaker DH. Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Taraxacum; 1989.

Bass WM. Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. 5th ed. Columbia, MO: Missouri Archaeological Society; 2005.

Krogman WM, Iscan MY. The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. 2nd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas; 1986.

Trotter M, Gleser GC. Estimation of stature from long bones of American Whites and Negroes. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1952;10(4):463-514. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330100407

Jantz RL, Ousley SD. FORDISC 3.0: Personal Computer Forensic Discriminant Functions. University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Department of Anthropology; 2005.

Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMR. Clinically Oriented Anatomy. 7th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.

Smith RJ, Walker PL. The length and weight of the human humerus. Anat Rec. 2000;260(3):315-20. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(20000301)260:3<315::AID-AR9>3.0.CO;2-2

Johnson D, Singh R. Morphometric analysis of the humerus bone in a North Indian population. J Anat Soc India. 2006;55(2):1-5. doi:10.1016/S0003-2778(06)80001-8

Sinnatamby CS. Last's Anatomy: Regional and Applied. 12th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2011.

Patel MM, Singh SP. Supratrochlear foramen of humerus in North Indians. J Anat Soc India. 2002;51(2):183-6. doi:10.1007/s12663-011-0193-6

Ruff CB, Holt B, Trinkaus E. Who's afraid of the big bad Wolff? "Wolff's law" and bone functional adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006;129(4):484-98. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20371

Auerbach BM, Ruff CB. Limb bone bilateral asymmetry: variability and commonality among modern humans. J Hum Evol. 2006;50(2):203-18. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.09.004

Steele DG, Bramblett CA. The Anatomy and Biology of the Human Skeleton. Texas A&M University Press; 1988.

Gonzalez PN, Bernal V, Perez SI. Developmental plasticity in human limb bones: variations related to different levels of mobility. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011;145(4):593-603. doi:10.1002/ajpa.21534

Gonzalez PN, Bernal V, Perez SI. Analysis of limb bone asymmetry in modern humans and its implications for skeletal reconstruction. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010;143(2):356-66. doi:10.1002/ajpa.21320

Downloads

Published

2023-03-28

Issue

Section

Articles

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.