Int J Anat Res 2014, 2(3): 524-32. ISSN 2321-4287
Original Article
ROLE OF ILIUM IN SEXUAL DIM ORPHISM OF HIP BONE: A
M ORPHOM ETRIC STUDY IN NORTH INDIAN POPULATION
Kanika Sachdeva *
1, Rajan Kumar Singla
2, Gurdeep Kalsey
3.
ABSTRACT
Access this Article online
Quick Response code Web site:
* 1
Assist ant Professor, Depart m ent of Anat omy, Sri Guru Ram Das Inst it ut e of M edical Sciences & Research, Am rit sar, Punjab, India.
2
Addit ional Professor, Depart m ent of Anat omy, Governm ent M edical College & Hospit al, Am rit sar, Punjab, India.
3 Ret ired as Prof & Head from Depart m ent of Anat omy, Governm ent M edical College & Hospit al
Am rit sar, Punjab, India.
Int roduction: Sex est im at ion of skeletal rem ains is an im portant issue in bot h forensics and bioarchaeology. M any m am m alian species display sexual dim orphism in t he pelvis, w here fem ales possess larger dim ensions of t he obst et ric canal t han m ales. This is cont rar y t o t he general patt ern of body size dim or phism , w here m ales are larger t han fem ales. Pelvic dim orphism is oft en at t ribut ed t o select ion relat ing t o par t urit ion, or as a developm ental consequence of secondary sexual different iat ion. Current opinion regards t he hip bone as t he m ost reliable sex indicat or because it is t he m ost dim orphic bone, par t icularly in adult individuals.
M aterial & M ethods: In t he present st udy, an att em pt has been m ade t o find t he base line data of t hirt een param et ers pertaining t o ilia of 100 hip bones of know n sex and side. Var iables st udied w ere: Tot al lengt h of iliac crest , lengt hs of it s vent ral & dorsal segm ent s; dist ance bet w een Ant erior Superior Iliac Spine & Iliac Tubercle; Iliac height ; Vent ral, Sacral, Direct , Low er & Upper iliac height s; Iliac breadt h; Low er, Vent ral & Sacral iliac breadt hs, Lengt h of pelvic & sacral part s of Chilot ic Line.
Results:The result s obtained w ere tabulat ed, stat ist ically analysed & com pared t o t he earlier lit erat ure. It w as seen t hat alm ost all t he param et ers except Sacral Iliac Height , Low er Iliac Height & Pelvic part s of Chilot ic line w ere longer in m ales.
Conclusion: To conclude, t he m orphom et ry of ilium also const it ut es an im por tant m ean of sexual dim orphism . How ever it s param et ers are longer in m ales as it does not form a part of birt h canal so is independent of sex hor m ones & is akin t o general r ule t hat m ale bones are larger t han fem ale bones.
KEYW ORDS : Sexual dim or phism , Hip bone, Ilium , sex det erm inat ion, Nort h Indian.
INTRODUCTION
Int ernat ional Journal of Ana tomy and Research,
Int J Anat Res 2014, Vol 2(3):524-32. ISSN 2321- 4287
Received: 30 July 2014
Peer Review : 30 July 2014 Published (O): 31 Aug 2014 Accept ed: 14 Aug 2014 Published (P): 30 Sep 2014
Int ernat ional Journal of Anat omy and Research ISSN 2321-4287
w w w.ijm hr.org/ ijar.ht m
Address for Correspondence: Dr. Kanika Sachdeva, Assist ant Professor, Depart m ent of Anat omy,
Sri Guru Ram Das Inst it ut e of M edical Sciences & Research, Am rit sar- 143001, Punjab, India. Phone No: +919888284878 E-M ail: [email protected]
In skelet al rem ains, t he sex det erm inat ion by forensic ant hropologist s or bio archaeologist s t ypically relies on t he analysis of quant it at ive and qualit at ive charact erist ics of t he skelet on. In t his regard, t he m ost w idely used feat ures belong t o t he pelvic and cranial areas [1]. The nat ure and
Int J Anat Res 2014, 2(3): 524-32. ISSN 2321-4287
M ATERIALS AND M ETHODS
It is rat her im possible t o det erm ine t he sex of an individual from his skelet al rem ains unless all t he bones are available. Except ing hip bone probably no ot her bone is as valuable in t his regard [5]. Hip bone is an ideal bone for sex det erm inat ion because it not only reflect s t he general sex differences bet w een t he t w o sexes but also t he special adapt at ion of fem ale hip bone for child bearing[6]. M oreover, of all t he part s of t he post cranial skelet on w hich are so im port ant for t he sex diagnosis of prehist oric skelet on rem ains, one of t he t w o hip bones is usually sufficient ly w ell preserved. This m ay give an insight int o t he part icular significance w hich at t aches t o t he hip bone in t he assessm ent of sex classificat ion [7].
It i s w i d el y reco gn i zed t hat skel et al charact erist ics vary am ong populat ions, t hus each group should have specific st andards t o opt im ize t he accuracy of ident ificat ion [8]. The object ive of t his st udy is t o det erm ine t he extent of dim orphism exhibit ed by t he ilium of hip bones in order t o exam ine t heir ut ilit y in t he m et ric det erm inat ion of sex in skelet al rem ains of Nort h Indian origin. The param et ers st udied excluded t hose pertaining t o anterior & post erior borders of hip bone.
The m at erial for t he present st udy com prised of 100 h i p b o nes of t he k no w n sex [ M al e:Fem al e=80:20] and sid e [ Ri ght : Left =50:50], belonging t o 40 m ale and 10 female individuals, obt ained from t he Depart m ent of Anat o m y, Go v er n m ent M ed i cal Col l ege, Am rit sar, Punjab, India; during t he period 2007-2009. The bones w ere undam aged and show ed no pat hological changes.
For each of t he hip bones, t he t hirt een variables pert aining t o t he ilium w ere m easured (Table 1; Fig 1 & 2).
For m easuring t hese variables t he follow ing inst rum ent s w ere used:
1. Vernier callipers of t he com pany Aerospace w it h a least count of 0.02 m m .
2. Ruler w it h a least count 1m m .
3. Doct or ’s t ape.
Fig. 1: Diagram show ing various i lial param et ers taken from t he glut eal surface of ilium . (Point s have been
dis-cussed in Table 1)
Fig. 2: Diagram show ing various i lial param et ers taken from t he iliac (int ernal) & sacropelvic surfaces of ilium . (Point s have been discussed in Table I)
Sr. no. Param et er Landm arks Show n in fig. as 1 Total l en gth of i l i ac cr est Ar ch ASIS-PSIS Dotted BC (Fi g. I)
1(a). Length of ventr al segment Ar ch ASIS- Poi nt M Dotted BM (Fi g. I)
1(b). Length of dor sal segmen t Ar ch Poi nt M -PSIS Dotted M C (Fi g. I)
3 Il i ac hei ght Poi n t O- Poi nt A OA (Fi g. I)
4 Ventr al i l i ac hei ght Poi n t O- ASIS OB (Fi g. I)
5 Sacr al i l i ac hei ght Poi n t O-PSIS OC (Fi g. I)
6 Il i ac br ea dth ASIS-PSIS BC (Fi g. I)
7 Lower i l i ac br eadth AIIS-PSIS CD (Fi g. I)
8 Ventr al i l i ac br eadth Poi n t A- ASIS AD (Fi g.I I)
9 Sacr al i l i ac br eadth Poi n t A- PSIS AC (Fi g.I I)
10 Di r ect i l i ac hei ght IIP- Poi nt F BF (Fi g.I I)
11.s Lower i l i ac hei ght Ar ch Poi nt A- IP Dotted AW (Fi g.II)
12 Upper i l i ac hei ght Poi n t A- Poi nt F AF (Fi g.I I)
13 (a). Length of Pel vi c par t of chi l oti c
l i ne Poi n t A- IP AW (thi ck) (Fi g.II)
13(b). Length of Sacr al par t o f chi l oti c
l i ne Poi n t A- Poi nt Y AY(Fi g.I I)
2 Di stance Anter i or super i or i l i ac ASIS- IT BT (Fi g. I) spi ne & I l i ac Tuber cl e
Table 1: Show ing Different Param et ers Of The Ilium Of The Hip Bone & Landm ar ks For Their M easurem ent s.
ASIS- Ant eri or superi or ili ac spi ne, PSIS- Post er ior super ior Iliac Spine,
Point M- Junct i on of vent ral & dorsal segment s on ili ac crest , IT- Ili ac Tubercle, Point O- Cent ral point of acet abulum, Point A- Aur icular Point ,
Int J Anat Res 2014, 2(3): 524-32. ISSN 2321-4287 The linear m easurem ent s w ere t aken w it h t he help of sliding Vernier calipers by keeping t he caliper ends bet w een t he designat ed point s (Phot ograph 1).
To m easure t he curved dist ances, doct or ’s t ape and ruler w ere used e.g. t o m easure t he lengt h of t he iliac crest ext ending bet w een ant erior superior iliac spine and t he post erior superior iliac spine (Arch ASIS-PSIS [Sr. No. 1]), doct or ’s t ape was plast ered against t he iliac crest . Then t he t ape was m arked at t he designat ed point s (i .e. ASIS & PSIS), lif t ed o f f t h e b one and m easured along t he scale of t he ruler. Ot her arch es w ere m easu red in a si m i l ar w ay (Phot ograph 2).
Photograph 1: Illust rat es m easurem ent of st raight Dis-tances. (eg: Distance ASIS-IT, Sr No. 2)
Photograph 2: Illust rat es m easurem ent of cur ved dis-tances (eg: t otal lengt h of Iliac Crest ; Sr. No. 1)
For m easuring t he lengths of ventral & dorsal segments of t he iliac crest {Sr. No. 1(a) & 1(b)}, a point M was t aken on t he iliac crest at t he junc-t ion of junc-t hese junc-t w o segm enjunc-t s & junc-t hen each of junc-t he t w o segm ent s w ere m easured.
To record Iliac Height, Ventral iliac Height & Sacral iliac height (Sr. No3,.4 & 5), cent ral Point of Acet abulum (Point O in Fig. 1) was locat ed. For locat ing t he cent ral point of acet abulum , Schult z (1949) [9] described follow ing m et hods:
a) Frequent ly t here is an irregularit y bot h in t he acet abulum and inside t he pelvis.
b) There is a change in t hickness w hich m ay be seen by holding t he bone upt o t he light .
c) Oft en t here is a not ch in t he border of t he art icular surface in t he acet abulum .
In t he present st udy m et hod (a) of Schult z (1949) [9] was used (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3:Show ing Acetabular Point .
For m easuring Ventral Iliac Breadth, Sacral Iliac Breadth, (Sr. Nos 8 & 9) auricular point (Point A in Fig. II) was det erm ined. The auricular point is t he point of int ersect ion of t he arcuat e line w it h t he ant erior border of t he auricular surfaces
Direct Iliac Height (Sr. No. 10) w as m easured bet w een ilio-ischio pubic t ubercle and iliac crest at at t achm ent of ilio lum ber ligam ent (BF in Fig. II) w it h t he help of vernier callipers on bot h sides. Ilio-ischio pubic t ubercle is t he ast er like sit e of union of t he pelvic elem ent s w hich leaves, t hroughout life, a cent ral t ubercle, perhaps subdivided, and faint ly prominent ridges m arking t he union of ilium w it h ischium and w it h pubis. The pubic union is crossed by iliopect ineal line w hich cont inues upt o or near t he auricular surface [10].
Int J Anat Res 2014, 2(3): 524-32. ISSN 2321-4287 Upper Iliac height (Sr. No. 12) is t he dist ance bet w een t he point w here t he iliopect ineal line or it s project ion m eet s t he auricular surface i.e. t he auricular point and iliac crest at t he lim it of at t achm ent of ilio-lum bar ligam ent [10] (AF in Fig. II). It w as t aken w it h t he help of vernier calliper on bot h sides.
Chilotic line extends from iliopect ineal em inence t o t he nearest point on ant erior auricular m argin {w hich corresponds t o auricular point of Seidler (1980) [7]} and t hence t o iliac crest . The auricular point divides t his chi lot ic line int o ant er ior (pelvic) and post erior (sacral) segm ent s [11]. For m easurem ent of chilot ic line and it s segm ent s, Derry (1923) [11] suggest ed m arking puboiliac and aur icular point s. According t o him t he puboiliac point is located on t he iliopect ineal line at t he sit e of original union of t he pubis and ilium . Som et im es it is ill defined and t hen t he iliopect ineal em inence is a useful landm ark in t h at case. Th e d i f fer ent segm ent s w er e m easured as follow s:
(a) Pelvic Part: - It is t he dist ance bet w een t he pubo iliac point and t he auricular point (AW t hick in Fig. II). It was recorded w it h t he help of vernier callipers on bot h sides.
(b) Sacral part: - For det erm inat ion of t he sacral part of chi lot ic line, it s pelvic par t w as ext ended upwards t o meet t he iliac crest and t he point where it m eet s t he sam e is m arked. Then t his was m easured w it h t he vernier cal l i per s as t h e d i st an ce bet w een t h e auricular point t o t he point m arked on iliac crest vide supra (AY in Fig. 2).
Apart from t hese, 16 param et ers of ant erior border & 7 param et ers of Great er Sciat ic Not ch w ere also observed [12, 13].
The ent ire dat a t hus obt ained was st at ist ically analyzed using m axim um and m inim um values, ran ge, m ean, st an dard deviat ion and 95% confidence int ervals of t he m ean. The t ot al sam p l e w as t h en su b di v i ded in t o t w o subsam ples, t he 20 fem al es and 80 m ales r esp ect i v ely. Th e exi st en ce o f si gni f i can t differences bet w een t he m eans for t he t w o sub sam p l es w as an al y zed b y u sin g t h e Independent St udent ’s t-t est . Then t he ent ire sam ple was subdivided according t o side, i.e. 40 right m ales, 40 left m ales, 10 right fem ales and
RESULTS AND TABLES
10 lef t fem ales and analyzed by t he Paired St udent ’s t -t est , i.e. m ale right bones w ere com pared w it h m ale left bones and fem ale right bones w it h t he fem ale left bones.
The observat ions of t he t hirt een param et ers pert aining t o ilium of t he hip bone have been depict ed in Table 2, w hich show s t he m ean values and range on right & left sides in m ales and fem ales and also t he m ean values and range in t he t w o sexes, irrespect ive of t he sides. The p-values bet w een t he m ean values of t he t w o sides and t w o sexes have also been given in t he t able.
1. Total Length of Iliac crest: It was found t o be significant ly m ore in t he Nort h Indian m ales as com pared t o fem ales (p-value = 0.001), but t he difference in relat ion t o side w as insignificant (p-value = 0.259 in m ales & 0.181 in fem ales), being m ore t owards left in m ales and t owards right side in fem ales.
· Lengt h of vent ral segm ent : It was significant ly m ore in m ales (p-value = 0.001) as com pared w it h fem ales but difference w it h respect t o side was insignificant in bot h sexes (p-value = 0.326 in m ales & 0.799 in fem ales), being m ore on right side in m ales and on left side in fem ales.
· Lengt h of dorsal segm ent : It was also m ore i n m al es, t h e m ean di f f er en ce b ei n g st at ist ically insignificant bot h w it h respect t o sex (p-value = 0.123) and side (p-value = 0.088 in m ales & 0.141in fem ales), being m ore on left side in m ales and on right side in fem ales.
2. Dist ance bet w een Anterior Superior Iliac spine & Iliac Tubercle (ASIS-IlT). It s Alt hough being slight ly m ore on left side in bot h t he sexes, t he difference bet w een t he sides was st at ist ically insignificant (p-value = 0.084 in m ales & 0.382 in fem ales). At t he sam e t im e it was m ore in m ales as com pared t o fem ales and t he difference bet w een t he m eans w it h r esp ect t o sex w as st at ist i cal l y h i gh l y significant (p-value = 0.001).
Int J Anat Res 2014, 2(3): 524-32. ISSN 2321-4287 1 Total length of
iliac crest
24.17 + 1.88 (20.90 -28.70)
24.32+ 1.71 (21.50-27.90)
24.24 + 1.78 (21.65 -27.60)
22.67 + 2.04 (20.20- 25.40)
22.59 + 1.79 (20.40-25.50)
22.63+ 1.85
(20.30- 25.45) 0.259 0.181 0.001
6 Iliac breadth 14.48+ 1.19
(12.60- 17.00)
14.59 + 1.16 (10.60- 16.90)
14.53 + 1.16 (10.60- 16.90)
14.37+ 1.49 (12.29-17.30)
14.27 + 1.59 (12.71- 17.70)
14.32 + 1.50
(12.50- 17.50) 0.057 0.459 0.496
1(a). Length of ventral
segment 0.326 0.799 0.001
M ales Females
1(b). Length of dorsal
segment 0.088 0.141 0.123
2
Distance Ant erior Superior Iliac
Spine & Iliac Tubercle
5.44 + 0.82 (4.10- 6.83)
5.68 + 0.70 (4.64 -7.03)
5.56 + 0.76
(4.70- 6.58) 0.084 0.382 <0.001
3 Iliac height 11.83 + 1.02 0.082 0.545 0.006
(10.57- 13.81) 12.65 + 1.19
(8.52- 15.10)
7 Lower iliac
breadth 0.601 0.096 0.235
5 Sacral iliac height 0.882
4 Ventral iliac
height 0.038 0.176 < 0.001
0.077 0.632 0.001 12.56 + 0.94
(11.35 – 15.10)
11.73 + 1.17 (9.95- 13.40)
8 Ventral iliac
breadth 0.642 0.629 0.273
9 Sacral iliac breadth
6.05 + 0.90 (4.99- 8.07)
6.01 + 0.82
(4.87- 7.80) 0.432
13(a). 0.528 0.141 0.009
Sr. No.
M ALES FEM ALES
P-value between
Right & Left Sides
M ean values of 2 sexes
11 Low er iliac height 0.908 0.067 0.008
12 Upper iliac height 0.18 0.023 0.001
0.067 0.015
10 Direct iliac height
13(b). 0.596 0.283 0
Right M ean+S.D. (Range) [40] Parameter
(All values in cm) Left M ean+S.D.
(Range) [40]
M ean+S.D (Range) [80]
Right M ean+S.D. (Range) [10]
Left M ean+S.D (Range) [10]
0.09 0.819
12.21 + 0.61 (11.29- 13.60)
12.31 + 0.61 (11.26- 13.52)
12.41 + 0.90 (10.70- 14.80)
12.54 + 0.89 (11.25- 14.95) 12.57 + 0.96 (9.71- 14.40) 12.59 + 0.97
(9.95- 14.50) 12.57 + 0.96
(9.71- 14.40)
8.89 + 0.72 (7.20- 10.00) 16.12 + 1.57 (13.20-18.70)
16.03+ 1.49 (13.60- 18.50)
14.65 + 1.09 (13.60-17.90)
15.03 + 1.30 (13.90- 17.90)
5.43 + 0.64 (4.23 -7.02)
6.82 + 0.81 (5.81- 9.21)
6.83 + 0.84 (5.83- 9.41)
6.18 + 0.46 (5.33 – 6.75)
5.98 + 0.73 (4.75- 7.00)
6.08 + 0.54 (5.28- 6.88) 6.85 + 0.91
(5.80- 9.61)
M ean+S.D. (Range) [ 20]
Length of Sacral part of Chilotic
Line Length of Pelvic part of chilotic
line
14.84 + 1.18 (13.85 – 17.45)
7.70+ 1.24 (6.05-9.65) 7.44 + 1.09
(5.20- 9.0) 7.96 + 1.55
(5.10- 10.50) 8.20 + 1.26
( 5.75- 10.50) 8.36 + 1.29
(5.90- 10.80) 8.05 + 1.23
(5.60- 10.50)
11.78 + 1.05 (10.52- 13.80)
11.88+ 1.04 (10.61- 13. 81) 6.35 + 0.83
(4.85- 7.89) 6.46 + 1.01
(4.83- 8.31) 6.25 + 0.80
(4.62 – 7.71)
15.94 + 1.43 (13.0-19.0)
12.40 + 0.65 (11.22 -13.43)
11.60 + 1.47 (8.01- 13.25)
6.57 + 0.82 (5.40- 8.40)
6.49 + 0.73 (5.50- 7.79)
6.07 + 0.82 (4.52- 7.10) 5.74 + 0.79
(4.43- 7.04)
5.91 + 0.73 (5.02- 7.07) 5.46 + 0.60
(4.10- 6.93) 5.48 + 0.65
(3.96- 6.90)
8.76 + 0.68 (7.72- 10.02)
5.37 + 0.37 (4.52- 5.80) 5.68 + 0.36
(5.30- 6.30) 5.98 + 0.83
(4.57- 7.70)
6.65 + 0.6 (5.80- 7.68) 6.39 + 0.92 (5.05-8.50) 11.66 + 1.27 (8.95- 13.28)
5.53 + 0.31 (4.94- 6.02) 8.72 + 0.59 ( 8.00- 9.96)
6.20 + 1.09 (4.70- 8.60) 5.93 + 0.56
(4.85- 7.66) 5.92 + 0.58
(4.90- 7.60) 5.93 + 0.60
(4.80- 7.71)
7.38 + 0.92 (6.16- 10.02)
7.47 + 0.93 (6.04- 9.97)
7.43 + 0.90 (6.39- 10.00)
6.80 + 0.52 (6.10-7.64) 8.93 + 0.71
(7.48- 10.06)
8.88 + 0.68 (7.38- 9.99)
8.67 + 0.65 (7.74 – 9.90)
7.73 + 0.59 (6.83- 8.68)
7.88 + 0.58 (7.14- 8.67)
9.73+ 1.05 (8.32- 13.96)
9.75 + 0.91 (8.41-12.20)
9.74 + 0.98 (7.25- 12.25)
9.75 + 1.07 (8.05-11.50)
10.03 + 0.97 (8.69- 11.58)
9.80 + 0.94 (8.57 – 11.50) 12.75 + 1.39
(7.98 – 16.90) 12.54 + 0.98
(9.06- 14.80)
8.60 + 0.69 (7.65- 9.95)
8.43 + 0.73 (6.95- 9.52)
8.52 + 0.71 (7.45- 9.67)
8.02+ 1.55 (5.10-10.50)
insignificant in bot h sexes (p-value = 0.082 in m ales & 0.545 in fem ales).How ever iliac height w as significant ly m ore in m ales (p-value = 0.006).
4. Ventral Iliac Height: It was m ore on right side in bot h t he sexes, but t he difference w as st at ist ically significant only in m ales (p-value = 0.038 in m ales & 0.176 in fem ales). When com pared bet w een t he t w o sexes t he m ean difference was highly significant (p-value < 0.001), being m ore in m ales as com pared t o fem ales.
5. Sacral iliac height: It was m ore on left side in bot h sexes, t hough st at ist ically insignificant (p-value = 0.882 in m ales & 0.090 in females). Sim ilarly, on com paring t he m ean values of t he t w o sexes, it was m ore in fem ales on bot h t he sides t hough t he difference was
st at ist ically insignificant (p-value = 0.819).
6. Iliac Breadth: Alt hough it was m ore t owards left side in m ales & right side in fem ales, t he difference w as st at ist ically insignificant in bot h cases (p-value = 0.057 in m ales & 0.459 in fem ales). The m ean values w ere m ore in m ales, but t he difference bet w een t he t w o sexes was also st at ist ically insignificant . (p-value = 0.496).
7. Low er iliac breadth: In t he present st udy, it was m ore in m ales as com pared t o fem ales b ut t he d if f eren ce w as st at i st i call y insignificant (p-value =0.235 ). Also it was m ore on right side in bot h sexes but t he difference was again insignificant (p-value = 0.601 in m ales & 0.096 in fem ales).
Int J Anat Res 2014, 2(3): 524-32. ISSN 2321-4287 Populat ion, vent ral Iliac Breadt h was m ore in
m ales but t he difference w as st at ist ically insignificant (p-value = 0.273). Similarly when com pared on t he t w o sides, it was m ore t ow ards lef t side in bot h sexes but t he difference w as st at ist ically insignificant (p-value = 0.642 in m ales & 0.629 in fem ales).
9. Sacral iliac breadth: It was m ore in m ales as com pared w it h females, t he difference being stat ist ically significant (p-value = 0.015). Also w hen com pared bet w een t he t w o sides, alt hough it was m ore t owards t he right side i n b o t h t he sexes, t h e d i f f er en ce w as st at ist ically insignificant in bot h sexes (p-value = 0.432 in m ales & 0.067 in fem ales).
1 0. D ire ct i liac h eigh t :It w as f o u nd t o b e significant ly m ore in m ales (p-value =0.001). Also it was m ore t owards left side in m ales and t ow ards right side in fem ales but t he differences w ere st at ist ically insignificant in bot h sexes (p-value = 0.077 in m ales & 0.632 in fem ales).
11 .Low er i lia c he ight : It w as fou nd t o be significant ly m ore in fem ales (p-value = 0.008). But on com parison bet w een t he sides, alt hough being more t owards right side
in m al es and lef t sid e i n f em al es, t h e differences w ere st at ist ically insignificant in bot h (p-value = 0.908 in m ales & 0.067 in fem ales).
12. Upper Iliac Height: It was m ore in m ales as com pared w it h fem al es, t he dif ference bet w een m eans being highly significant (p-value = 0.001). When compared w it h respect t o sides, it was m ore t ow ards left side in m ales but on right side in fem ales. How ever, t he difference was significant only in fem ales (p-value = 0.180 in m ales & 0.023 in females).
13. Chilotic Line:
a. Length of pelvic part of chilotic line: The pelvic part was significant ly longer in females (p-value = 0.009). Also it was longer t owards left side in bot h t he sexes but t he difference was st at ist ically insignificant (p-value = 0.528 in m ales & 0.141 in fem ales).
b. Length of sacral part of chilotic line: The sacral part was significant ly longer in m ales (p -val ue = 0.001). Ho w ev er, i t w as insignificant ly longer t ow ards left side in m ales (p-value = 0.596) & t owards right side in fem ales (p-value = 0.283).
M ales Fem ales M ales Fem ales
St raus (1927) [10] W hit es 13.02 12.44 16.24 15.73
St raus (1927) [10] N egroes 12.5 11.65 15.66 14.12
Davivongs (1963) [4] Australian Aborigines 19.76 18.19 14.8 14.22
Orban (1980) [19] French & Belgian 13.42 12.62 15.85 15.31
Pat riquin et al (2005) [8] W hit es - - 16.32 16.1
Pat riquin et al (2005) [8] Blacks - - 15.01 14.54
Rissech & M algosa (2005) [17] Lisbon - - 15.47 15.28
Rissech & M algosa (2005) [17] Iberian 13.02 12.21 -
-Rissech & M algosa (2005) [17] Brit annic 12.66 11.5 -
-Present St udy N ort h Indians 12.65 11.83 14.46 14.32
Aut hors Race Iliac Height (cm ) Iliac Breadt h (cm )
M ales Fem ales M ales Fem ales M ales Fem ales
St raus (1927) [10] W hit es 13.02 12.44 5.25 5.97 8.09 7.05
St raus (1927) [10] N egroes 12.5 11.65 5.07 5.61 7.86 6.77
Hanna & W ashburn (1953) [20] Eskim oes - - 5.45 6.18 7.24 6.42
Present St udy N ort h Indians 12.54 11.66 5.93 6.69 7.43 6.65 Aut hors Race Direct Iliac Height (cm) Low er Iliac Height (cm ) Upper Iliac Height (cm )
M ale s Fe m ale s M ales Fe m ales
Davivongs (1 9 6 3) [4 ] Aust r alian Aborigine s 4.99 5.82 6.4 5.67
Pre se nt St udy N ort h Indians 5.46 5.91 6.83 6.08 Sacral Part (cm )
Aut hors Race Pe lvic Part (cm )
Table 5:Com parison Of Pelvic And Sacral Part s Of Chilot ic Line.
Table 4:Com parison Of Direct Iliac Height , Low er Iliac Height & Upper Iliac Height .
Int J Anat Res 2014, 2(3): 524-32. ISSN 2321-4287
DISCUSSION
Jordaan (1976) [14] is of t he view t hat t he hom inid pelvis represent s t he t ot al response t o t he diverse forces w hich have m oulded it s st ruct ure, t hese being requirem ent s for efficient bipedalism and part urit ion. The pelvic girdle, a purely endochondral st ruct ure show s m arked changes w it h ascent t hrough t he phyla. The changes occurring in t he ilium are great er t han t h ose in i sch i um and p u bi s, b ecau se t h e st ruct ure is m ore closely relat ed t o different m odes and needs for locom ot ion. The essent ial feat ures w hich charact erize t he gradient of changes are t he closer relat ionship bet w een t he vert ebral colum n and t he ilium , w hich ensures stabilit y for w eight bearing, and it s developm ent t o provide m ore advant ageous leverage for t he m uscles concerned in locom ot ion. Robinson (1972) [15] point ed out t hat t hese changes serve t he addit ional purpose of m oving t he body’s cent re of gravit y dow nwards and backwards.
The m am m alian i lium is pr im it ively a long, slender rod t riangular in cross-sect ion; but in heavy bodied ungulat es and bipeds (m an) in w hich t here are pow erful glut eal m uscles, t he base is m uch expanded. The t ransit ion from t he quadrupedal t o t he perm anent erect post ure brought about a significant short ening of t he ilium [14].
1. Total length of iliac crest: It has been earlier st udied only by Joshi et al (2007) [16] w ho found it t o be longer in fem ales, but our st udy has revealed cont rast ing result s as in our sam ple iliac crest w as si gn if i cant ly l o nger i n m al es as com pared t o fem ales (Table 2). How ever no significant differences w it h respect t o side w ere found.
Also as is evident from Table 2, in t he present sam ple, bot h t he vent ral and dorsal segm ent s of crest w ere longer in m ales t han in fem ales. This finding is part ially in consonance & part ially cont rary t o result s of Joshi et al (2007) [16] w ho encount ered t he dorsal segm ent t o be longer in m ales but t he vent ral segm ent t o be dist inct ly larger in fem ales.
2. Distance betw een Anterior Superior Iliac spine & Iliac Tubercle (ASIS-lT): It has been st u d i ed o nl y by Josh i et al (2007) [ 16] i n Ahm ednagar populat ion and was found t o be 4.0
cm in m ales & 3.94 cm in fem ales. These values are m uch low er t han our values indicat ing a regional variat ion. How ever in bot h t he st udies, t h is d ist ance is m or e i n m ales ow i n g t o robust icit y of m ale skelet on and t o t he fact t hat t his dist ance is independent of influence of fem ale horm ones.
3. Iliac Height : Table 3 com pares t he m ean values of iliac height in t he t w o sexes as seen in t he present st udy w it h t he earlier st udies. It is evident from t his t able t hat iliac height in bot h m al e an d f em al e No r t h In d ian s i s al m ost com parable t o Negroes [10] & Brit annic [17] races, but less t han t he ot hers. How ever in all t hese races ilium is longer in m ales as com pared t o fem ales. The sam e was t rue in t he present st udy w it h t he difference bet w een t he m eans of t he t wo sexes being highly significant (p-value = 0.006).
Rissech & M algosa (2005) [17] , in t heir st udy on Iliac grow t h pat t erns, t hrew light upon t he fact t hat from 16-19 years onwards, differences in iliac height bet w een t he sexes w ere significant , consequent upon t he grow t h spurt at t his age.
Phylogeny: Jordaan (1976) [14] point ed out t hat t here occurs a significant short ening of ilium as w e ascend in phylogeny from Chim panzee t o Gorilla t o Orang t o Hum an. This is brought about by t he t ransit ion from t he quadrupedal t o a perm anent erect post ure. On t he ot her hand Hoot on (1930) [18] regarded t he hum an pelvis as so specialized and so dist inct from t hat of ant hropoid apes t hat he found it im possible t o derive m an from ancest ral st ock of Chim panzee-Gorilla-Orang t ype. Schult z(1949) [9] regarded t he com parat ive short ness of hum an ilium as represent ing a prim it ive condit ion in w hich m an equals t he m acaque and has preserved t his condit ion rat her t han he first part icipat ed in t he t rend of ant hropoids t owards increased lengt h of ilium follow ed by it s short ening.
Int J Anat Res 2014, 2(3): 524-32. ISSN 2321-4287 com pared t o fem ales and in t he present st udy t he difference bet w een t he m eans of t he t w o sexes was highly significant (p-value = 0.000).
5. Sacral Iliac Height:In t he only early st udy by Orban(1980) [19] on French & Belgian races, it was found t o be 10.32 cm in m ales & 10.43 cm in fem ales, again m ore t han our values of 9.74 & 9.80 in t he t w o sexes of t he present st udy. Here it is pert inent t o not e t hat in cont rast t o t he earlier param et ers, sacral iliac height was longer in fem ales as com pared w it h m ales in bot h t he st udies.
6. Iliac Breadth: A look at Table 3 show s t hat t he Iliac breadt h in t he present st udy is less t han alm ost all t he earlier st udies except in fem ales of Aust ralian Aborigines [4] in w hom it is slight ly less t han t he present st udy. Also in consonance w it h all t he earlier st udies, it is m ore in m ales as co m p ar ed t o f em al es. Bu t o n st at i st ical evaluat ion, t he difference w as found t o be insignificant (p-value = 0.496). While Davivongs (1963) [4] laid st ress on it s significance in sex det erm inat ion, Rissech & M algosa(2005) [17] denied it .
7. Low er Iliac Breadth: In t he present st udy t he low er iliac breadt h was found be m ore in m ales as com pared t o fem ales and also m ore on left side as com pared t o right . How ever none of t he differences was st at ist ically significant .
8. Ventral Iliac Breadth: In t he present st udy t his parameter was m ore in m ales, t he difference b et w een t he m ean s fo r bo t h sexes bein g st at ist ically insignif icant (p-value = 0.273). How ever w hen com pared on t he t w o sides, it was m ore t owards left side in bot h sexes but t he difference was st at ist ically insignificant in bot h sexes (p-value = 0.642 in m ales & 0.629 in fem ales). No ot her st udy could be t raced in t he accessible lit erat ure t o com pare it .
9. Sacral Iliac Breadt h: This param et er w as m ore in m ales as com pared w it h fem ales, t he difference being st at ist ically significant (p-value = 0.015). Also w hen com pared bet w een t he t w o sides, alt hough it was m ore t owards t he right side in bot h t he sexes, t he dif ference w as st at ist ically insignificant in bot h sexes (p-value = 0.432 in m ales & 0.067 in fem ales).
No p r ev i o us st u d i es are avai l ab l e f o r com parisons of Low er iliac breadt h, Vent ral Iliac
Breadt h & Sacral Iliac Breadt h. How ever a higher value of Lower Iliac breadt h, Vent ral Iliac Breadt h an d Sacr al Ili ac Breadt h in m ales, m ay be at t r i but ed t o t heir robust skelet on and no co nt r i bu t i on o f t h ese p ar am et er s t o t h e form at ion of birt h canal in fem ales. No earlier dat a could be t raced in accessible lit erat ure t o com pare t hese param et ers.
10. Direct Iliac Height: As evident from Table 4, present values were in consonance wit h Negroes but are slight ly less t han Whit es [10]. How ever t he direct iliac height w as m ore in m ales as com pared t o fem ales in all t he races and in t he present st udy t he difference bet w een t he means of t he t w o sexes was highly significant (p-value = 0.001).
11. Lower Iliac Height: A glance at Table 4 shows t hat w hen com pared bet w een t he t w o sexes t he low er iliac height is m ore in fem ales in all t he races and am ongst t he races it is m axim um in Nort h Indians (bot h males and fem ales). A higher value in fem ales in all races m ay be at t ribut ed t o t he fact t hat it form s a part of pelvic inlet .
12. Upper Iliac Height: Table 4, show s t hat when com pared bet w een t he t w o sexes, t he Upper Iliac Height is always m ore in m ales in all races & am ongst t he races it is m axim um in Whit es [10] and m inim um in Eskim os [20] , values of t he present st udy being in bet w een t he t w o races (bot h m ales and fem ales).
St raus (1927) [10] has apt ly highlight ed t he fact t hat t he m ost st riking sex differences in ilium appear in relat ion t o low er and upper segm ent s of ilium i.e. t he fem ales of bot h Whit e & Negro st ocks exceed t heir respect ive m ale counterpart s in low er iliac height w it h reverse result s in upper i liac height . Sam e is t r ue about t he Nor t h Indians.
Int J Anat Res 2014, 2(3): 524-32. ISSN 2321-4287
CONCLUSION
To sum m ar ize t he present st udy com pares m orphom et ry of som e of t he ilial param et ers bet w een t he t w o sexes & t he t w o sides. The p ar am et er s w i t h st at i st i cal l y si gni f i can t differences bet w een t he t w o sexes w ere Tot al len gt h o f i li ac cr est , lengt hs o f it s vent ral segm ent s; dist ance bet w een Ant erior Superior Iliac Spine & Iliac Tubercle; Iliac height ; Vent ral, Direct , Low er & Upper iliac height s; Sacral iliac breadt hs, Lengt h of pelvic & sacral part s of Chilot ic Line.
It was also seen t hat alm ost all t he param et ers except sacral iliac height , low er iliac height & pelvic part of chilot ic line w ere longer in m ales as com pared t o fem ales ow ing t o robust icit y of t he m ale skelet on and t o t he fact t hat ilium cont ribut es least t ow ards form at ion of birt h canal. So it is sm aller in fem ales as com pared w it h m ales obeying t he general rule t hat m ale skelet ons are larger & m ore robust because of st ronger m uscle m ass. The t hree param eters i.e. Sacral Iliac Height , Low er Iliac Height & Pelvic part s of Chilot ic line w ere longer in fem ales as t hey cont ribut e in form at ion of t rue pelvis & birt h canal.
How ever no significant differences w it h respect t o side could be made out except for Vent ral Iliac breadt h w hich was significant ly m ore t owards right side in m ales & Upper Iliac height w hich w as significant ly m ore t ow ards right side in fem ales.
Thus it can be laid forward t hat ilium of hip bone m ay also serve as an im port ant indicat or for sexual dim orphism . But ow ing t o t he scant y l it er at u r e avai l abl e f or co m p ar i son , m or e elaborat e st udies are required for dif ferent populat ions. The present st udy provides a baseline dat a for t his region.
Conflicts of Interests: None
[3] . Hoot on EA. From prim at e life cycle. In Up f rom t he ap e. 8t h Ed i t i o n , N e w Yo r k : Th e M acm i l l am
Com pany; 1959: 106-120.
[ 4] . Davivongs V. The pelvic girdle of t he Aust ralian Aborigine; sex differences and sex det erm inat ion. Am J Phys Ant hropol 1963; 21: 443-56.
[5]. Singh S & Gangrade KC. The Sexing of Adult Clavicles Dem arking point s for Varanasi Zone. J Anat Soc Ind 1968; 17: 89-100.
[6]. Pal GP, Bose S and Choudhary S. Reliabi lit y of crit eria used for sexing of hip bones. J Anat Soc Ind 2004; 53(2): 58-60
[ 7] . Seidler H. Sex-diagnosis of isolat ed os coxae by discrim inant funct ions. J Hum an Evol 1980; 9: 597-600.
[8] . Pat riquin M L, St eyn M , Lot h SR. M et ric analysis of sex differences in Sout h African black and w hit e pelves. Forensic Sci Int 2005; 147(2-3): 119-127. [9]. Schult z AH. Sex differences in t he pelves of prim ates.
Am J Phys Ant hropol 1949; 7: 401-424.
[10]. St raus WL Jr. The hum an ilium : Sex and St ock. Am J Phys Ant hropol 1927; 11(1): 1-28.
[11]. Derry DE. On t he sexual and racial charact ers of t he hum an ilium . J Anat 1923; 58: 71-83.
[12]. Kalsey G, Singla RK & Sachdeva K. The role of t he great er sciat ic not ch of t he hip bone in sexual dim orphism : a m orphom et ric st udy in t he Nort h Indian populat ion.M ed Sci Law 2011; April 51: 81-86.
[13]. Sachdeva K, Singla RK & Kalsey G. The role of t he an t e r i o r b o r d e r o f t h e h i p b o n e i n sexu al dim orphism : a m orphom et ric st udy in t he Nort h Indian populat ion. M ed Sci Law 2011; Oct ober 51, 208-214.
[14]. Jordaan HVF. The different ial developm ent of t he hom inid pelvis. S Afr M ed J 1976; 50: 744-748. [15]. Robinson JT. Ear ly Hom inid Post ure & Locom ot ion.
Chicago: Universit y of Chicago Press 1972. Cit ed By Jordaan HVF. The different ial developm ent of t he hom inid pelvis. S Afr M ed J 1976; 50: 744-748. [16]. Joshi SD, Joshi SS, Waghm gde PS, Daim i SR and
Siddiqui AU. M et r ical st udy of som e param et ers of hip bone. Abst ract (Sr. No. 33) of paper present ed in 55t h Nat ional Conference of Anat om ical societ y
of India, 26t h – 29t h Dec 2007, p 74.
[ 17] . Rissech C and M algosa A. Ilium grow t h st udy: applicabilit y in sex and age diagnosis. Forensic Sci Int 2005; 147(2-3): 165-174.
[ 18] . Hoot on EA. The Indi ans of Pecor Pueblo. Yale Universit y Press, New Haven; 1930, Cit ed by Heyns OS. Sexual Differences in t he Pelvis. S Afr J of M ed Sci 1947; 12: 17-20.
[19]. Or ban RS. An evaluat ion of t he sexual dim orphism of t he hum an innom inat e bone. J Hum an Evol 1980; 9: 601-607.
[20]. Hanna RE and Washbur n SL. Det erm inat ion of sex of skelet ons, as illust rat ed by a st udy of t he Eskim o pelvis. Hum an Biol 1953; 25: 21-27.
REFERENCES
[1] . M ount rakis C, Eliopoulos C, Koilias CG & M anolis SK. Sex Det e r m i n at i o n u si n g m e t at ar sal ost eom et rics from t he At hens collect ion. Forensic Sci Int 2010; 200(1-3): 178.
[2] . Washburn SL. Sex differences in t he pubic bone. Am J Phys Ant hropol 1948; (6): 199-207.
How to cite t his art icle:Kanika Sachdeva, Rajan Kum ar Singla, Gurdeep Kalsey . ROLE OF ILIUM IN SEXUAL DIM ORPHISM
