Comparing the Accuracy of Morphometric and Morphological Criteria of Hip Bone in Gender Determination
International Journal of Medical Toxicology and Forensic Medicine,
Vol. 9 No. 2 (2019),
16 June 2019
Background: A primary aim of forensic medicine is gender determination. Although hip is the optimal bone for this purpose, different determining criteria of this bone do not have the same accuracy. This is important in conditions that only parts of hip remain to determine gender. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of different hip criteria in gender determination.
Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated a total of 160 paired hips (80 males and 80 females) removed from the bodies for bone transplantation. Morphometric criteria were vertical and horizontal acetabular diameters and superior and inferior pubic ramus widths. Morphological criteria were a greater sciatic notch, obturator foramen, pubic body, preauricular sulcus, acetabular fossa position, and ischial tuberosity. The obtained data were analyzed using Cross Tab, t-test, and logistic regression analysis by SPSS. The significance level was set at P<0.05.
Results: There was no significant difference in morphometric and morphological criteria between the studied left and right hip bones (P>0.05). In gender determination, acetabular diameter and greater sciatic notch had the highest accuracy (85%), and obturator foramen (67.5%) and superior and inferior pubic ramus widths (65%) had the lowest accuracy.
Conclusion: Hip bone is not always completely available and preserved to determine gender. Moreover, sometimes not all anthropometric criteria of the bone are in favor of one gender. Therefore, investigating the accuracy of different criteria can be very important in interpreting the results. Thus, it has always been emphasized on the use of all available information in gender determination.
- Hip bone
- Gender determination
- Acetabular diameter
- Greater sciatic notch
- Pubic body
- Pubis bone
How to Cite
1. Sinha AP, Kumari A, Ali S, Jethani S. Morphometric study of distance between posterior inferior iliac spine and ischial spine of the human hip bone for sex determination. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2017; 2(2):718-20. [DOI:10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20140565]
2. Saukko P, Knight B. Knight’s forensic pathology. 4th edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2004.
3. Walker PL. Greater sciatic notch morphology: sex, age, and population differences. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2005; 127(4):385-91. [DOI:10.1002/ajpa.10422] [PMID]
4. Siddapur KR, Siddapur GK. Pelvic bone indices as effective parameters of sex determination in skeletal remains: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2017; 2(4):1526-9. [DOI:10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20141153]
5. Bruzek J. A method for visual determination of sex, using the human hip bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2002; 117(2):157-68. [DOI:10.1002/ajpa.10012] [PMID]
6. Kim DH, Lee SS, Han SH, Lee UY. A new landmark for measuring the ischium-pubis index for sex determination by using three-dimensional models of South Korean population. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2018; 50(5):472-81. [DOI:10.1080/00450618.2016.1267796]
7. Nagesh K, Kanchan T, Bastia BK. Sexual dimorphism of acetabulum-pubis index in South-Indian population. Legal Medicine. 2007; 9(6):305-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.legalmed.2007.05.003] [PMID]
8. Bardale R. Principles of forensic medicine & toxicology. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers; 2011. [DOI:10.5005/jp/books/11334]
9. Phenice TW. A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1969; 30(2):297-301. [DOI:10.1002/ajpa.1330300214] [PMID]
10. Takahashi H. Curvature of the greater sciatic notch in sexing the human pelvis. Anthropological Science. 2006; 114(3):187-91. [DOI:10.1537/ase.051111]
11. Iscan MY, Steyn M. The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher; 2013.
12. Dixit S, Kakar S, Agarwal S, Choudhry R. Sexing of human hip bones of Indian origin by discriminant function analysis. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 2007; 14(7):429-35. [DOI:10.1016/j.jflm.2007.03.009] [PMID]
13. Singh S, Potturi BR. Greater sciatic notch in sex determination. Journal of Anatomy. 1978; 125(Pt3):619-24. [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Gonzalez PN, Bernal V, Perez SI. Geometric morphometric approach to sex estimation of human pelvis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2009. [DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.04.012]
15. Patriquin M, Steyn M, Loth S. Metric analysis of sex differences in South African black and white pelves. Forensic Science International. 2005; 147(2-3):119-27. [DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.074]
16. Steyn M, İşcan M. Metric sex determination from the pelvis in modern Greeks. Forensic Science International. 2008; 179(1): 86.e1-86.e6. [DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.04.022]
17. Krogman WM. Determination of sex and parturition. In: Krogman WM, İşcan MY, editors. The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher; 1986.
18. Dreizen S, Snodgrasse RM, Webb-peploe H, Parker GS, Spies TD. Bilateral symmetry of skeletal maturation in the human hand and wrist. AMA Journal of Diseases of Children. 1957; 93(2):122-7. [DOI:10.1001/archpedi.1957.02060040124004]
19. Torgersen J. Asymmetry and skeletal maturation. Acta radiologica. 1951; 36(6):521-3. [DOI:10.3109/00016925109177005]
20. Mukhopadhyay PP. Determination of Sex by Sciatic Notch/Acetabular Ratio (Kelley’s Index) in Indian Bengali Skeletal Remains. Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine. 2012; 34(1):27-30.
21. Montagu M, Brožek JC. A handbook of anthropometry. Whitefish: Literary Licensing; 1960. [DOI:10.1037/12018-000]
22. El-Najjar MY, McWilliams KR. Forensic anthropology: the structure, morphology, and variation of human bone and dentition. Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher; 1978.
23. Steyn M, Patriquin ML. Osteometric sex determination from the pelvisâ€”Does population specificity matter? Forensic Science International. 2009; 191(1-3):113.e1-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.07.009]
24. Dolinak D, Matshes E, Lew EO. Forensic pathology: Principles and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005.
- Abstract Viewed: 99 times
- PDF Downloaded: 39 times