Shape variations of distal humerus based on geometric morphometric analysis

Year 2025, Volume: 39 Issue: 4, 293 - 305, 30.10.2025

Kübra Erdoğan

https://doi.org/10.18614/dehm.1813851

Abstract

BACKGROUND
The humerus is a bone commonly used in daily work and sports activities, and therefore, it is often traumatized. Especially in the reconstruction of humeral fractures, the knowledge of individual differences as well as sex and side differences has gained importance in patient-specific treatments. In this study, we aimed to investigate the bone shapes and shape differences in the distal end of dry humerus bone using geometric morphometry.
METHODS
Thirty-four (18 right, 16 left) dry humerus bones of unknown age and sex were used in this study. All specimens were photographed from posterior and inferior views in standardised positions, and homologous landmarks were assigned. Geometric morphometric analysis of the landmarks using x and y coordinates was performed with MorphoJ 1.08.01. Sex estimation of the bones was performed using the Rogers method, which is recognised in the literature.
RESULTS
Sex and side differences in the humerus were determined by shape analysis using geometric morphometric methods to determine the variations of landmarks in the bones.
DISCUSSION
The literature generally reported variation in the epicondylar region and the borders of the olecranon fossa. This study showed that the epicondylar regions are the areas most affected by variation in terms of individual, sex and side. However, variations around the olecranon fossa and trochlea of the humerus were relatively less.

Keywords

Anatomy , geometric morphometry , humerus , landmark , shape analysis , variation

References

• 1. Wei LB, Hu T, Liu J, An ZQ. Surgical treatment of intra-articular distal humeral fractures using a combined medial and lateral approach: an anatomic study. Orthop Surg. 2019;11(3):524–9.
• 2. Albanese J, Cardoso H, Saunders S. Universal methodology for developing univariate sample-specific sex determination methods: an example using the epicondylar breadth of the humerus. J Archaeol Sci. 2005;32:143–52.
• 3. Ríos Frutos L. Metric determination of sex from the humerus in a Guatemalan forensic sample. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;147(2–3):153–7.
• 4. Steyn M, Işcan MY. Osteometric variation in the humerus: sexual dimorphism in South Africans. Forensic Sci Int. 1999;106(2):77–85.
• 5. Hamzehtofigh M, Bayat P, Rahimifar R. Sex determination from the humerus bone in Iranian cases. Int J Morphol. 2019;37:1370–4.
• 6. Tellioğlu Metin A, Karakaş S. Humerus’tan morfometrik yöntemlerle cinsiyet tayini. Fırat Üniv Sağlık Bilim Tıp Derg. 2013;27(2):75–9.
• 7. Rogers TL. A visual method of determining the sex of skeletal remains using the distal humerus. J Forensic Sci. 1999;44(1):57–60.
• 8. Özden B. İran küçük bal arısı (Apis florea Fabricius) populasyonlarında geometrik morfometrik analizi [thesis]. Zonguldak: Karaelmas Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü; 2008. p.18–48.
• 9. Khattree R. Principal component analysis networks and algorithms. Xiangyu Kong, Changhua Hu, Zhansheng Duan. Int Stat Rev. 2017;85(3):543–4.
• 10. Rogers TL. Sex determination of adolescent skeletons using the distal humerus. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009;140(1):143–8.
• 11. Vance VL, Steyn M, L’Abbé EN. Nonmetric sex determination from the distal and posterior humerus in Black and White South Africans. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56(3):710–4.
• 12. Vance V, Steyn M. Geometric morphometric assessment of sexually dimorphic characteristics of the distal humerus. Homo. 2013;64(5):329–40.
• 13. López-Lázaro S, Pérez-Fernández A, Alemán I, Viciano J. Sex estimation of the humerus: a geometric morphometric analysis in an adult sample. Leg Med. 2020;47:101773.
• 14. Berthelot CM. Metric, nonmetric, and geometric morphometric methods of sex estimation using the distal humerus [thesis]. San Marcos (USA): Boston University; 2014. p.1–95.
• 15. Ammer S, d’Oliveira Coelho J, Cunha EM. Outline shape analysis on the trochlear constriction and olecranon fossa of the humerus: insights for sex estimation and a new computational tool. J Forensic Sci. 2019;64(6):1788–95.
• 16. Zalavras CG, Papasoulis E. Intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus: a review of current practice. Int Orthop. 2018;42(11):2653–62.
• 17. Standring S. Gray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice. 41st ed. London: Elsevier; 2016.
• 18. Spradley MK, Jantz RL. Sex estimation in forensic anthropology: skull versus postcranial elements. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56(2):289–96.
• 19. Charisi D, Eliopoulos C, Vanna V, Koilias CG, Manolis SK. Sexual dimorphism of the arm bones in a modern Greek population. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56(1):10–8.
• 20. Sakaue K. Sexual determination of long bones in recent Japanese. Anthropol Sci. 2004;112(1):75–81.
• 21. Gupta R, Khanchandani P. Intercondylar fractures of the distal humerus in adults: a critical analysis of 55 cases. Injury. 2002;33(6):511–5.
• 22. Sharma S, John R, Dhillon MS, Kishore K. Surgical approaches for open reduction and internal fixation of intra-articular distal humerus fractures in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2018;49(8):1381–91.