Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    

Users Online: 1697 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Year : 2005  |  Volume : 39  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 137-144

Femoral neck anteversion: A comprehensive Indian study

1 Department of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi, India
2 Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
3 Department of Radiodiagnosis, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
A K Jain
A-10, Part-B, Ashok Nagar, Ghaziabad - 201001,UP
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.36685

Rights and Permissions

Background: The femoral neck anteversion has important implications. Since these values are not documented for our population, we undertook this study to define this for Indian population. Methods: FNA was calculated on 300 dry femora by the Kingsley Olmsted method, and prospectively on otherwise normal living adults by CT method (n=72 hips), by biplanar radiography (n=138 hips) and clinically (n=138 hips). Results: The mean FNA by CT was 7.4 (SD 4.6) and more than 75% of cases were between 3.4 and 11.4. The mean FNA by X-ray method was 11.5 (SD 5.4) and more than 71% of cases were between 6.5 and 16.5. The mean, clinically, was 13.1 (SD 4.6) and almost 75% of cases were between 9.1 to 17.1. The mean FNA on dry femora has been calculated as 8.1 (SD 6.6) and almost 62% of cases were between 3.1 to 13.1. The mean FNA on right side was statistically significantly 1.7 less than on the left side. Statistically significant difference between the sexes was found only by the dry bone method (F>M = 3). Conclusions: Considering CT to be most accurate on living subjects, FNA in our study has been found to be 7.4 (SD 4.6). It is 4 -12 lower than most of the western studies by all these methods. Readings are 4.1 higher by the X-ray method and 5.7 by the clinical method. Correlation and regression equations have also been formed between the various methods and the clinical method correlates better than the X-ray method to the CT method.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded319    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal