Proximal Femoral Anatomy in the Normal Human Population

  • Paul A. Toogood
  • Anthony Skalak
  • Daniel R. Cooperman
Original Article


In this study, we developed a complete description of the morphology of the proximal femur. Then, using this framework, we (1) determined normal population means, standard deviations, and ranges; (2) established differences among subpopulations; and (3) showed correlations among the various measurements. To accomplish these objectives, we analyzed 375 adult femurs. Specimens were digitally photographed in standardized positions, measurements being obtained using ImageJ software. Three parameters of the head-neck relationship were assessed. Translation was examined through four raw offset measurements (anterior, posterior, superior, inferior) used to calculate anterior-posterior and superior-inferior ratios. Rotation was investigated through anteroposterior (AP) and lateral physeal angles. Concavity was examined using alpha, beta, gamma, and delta angles. Two parameters of the neck-shaft relationship were assessed, neck version and angle of inclination. Average anterior-posterior and superior-inferior ratios were 1.14 and 0.90. Average AP and lateral physeal angles were 74.33° and 81.83°, respectively. Averages for alpha, beta, gamma, and delta angles were 45.61°, 41.85°, 53.46°, and 42.95°, respectively. Average neck version and angle of inclination were 9.73° and 129.23°, respectively. Differences existed between males and females and between those younger and older than 50 years. Correlations were observed between translation and concavity, and translation and the neck-shaft relationships.

Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


  1. 1.
    Billing L. Roentgen examination of the proximal femur end in children and adolescents: a standardized technique also suitable for determination of the collum-, anteversion-, and epiphyseal angles. A study of slipped epiphysis and coxa plana. Acta Radiol Suppl. 1954;110:1–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper AA. Treatise on Dislocations and Fractures of the Joints. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Lilly and Wait et al; 1832.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunlap K, Shands AR Jr, Hollister LC Jr, Gaul JS Jr, Streit HA. A new method for determination of the torsion of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1953;35:289–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dunn DM. Anteversion of the neck of the femur: a method of measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1952;34:181–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Durham HA. Anteversion of the femoral neck in the normal femur and its relation to congenital dislocation of the hip. J Am Med Assoc. 1915;65:223–224.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elmslie RC. Aetiological factors in osteoarthritis of the hip-joint. Brit Med J. 1933:1–3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodman DA, Feighan JE, Smith AD, Latimer B, Buly RL, Cooperman DR. Subclinical slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1489–1497.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hernandez RJ, Tachdjian MO, Poznanski AK, Dias LS. CT determination of femoral torsion. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;137:97–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoaglund FT, Low WD. Anatomy of the femoral neck and head, with comparative data from Caucasians and Hong Kong Chinese. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;152:10–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ito K, Minka MA 2nd, Leunig M, Werlen S, Ganz R. Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect: a MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:171–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kingsley PC, Olmsted KL. A study to determine the angle of anteversion of the neck of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1948;30:745–751.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koczewski P. Radiological risk factors of bilaterality in unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol. 2003:68:225–230.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koval KJ, Zuckerman JD. Handbook of Fractures. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lawrence RC, Helmick CG, Arnett FC, Devo RA, Felson DT, Giannini EH, Heyse SP, Hirsch R, Hochberg MC, Hunder GG, Liang MH, Pillemer SR, Steen VD, Wolfe F. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum. 1998;41:778–799.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leunig M, Casillas MM, Hamlet M, Hersche O, Nötzli H, Slongo T, Ganz R. Slipped capital femoral epiphysis: early mechanical damage to the acetabular cartilage by a prominent femoral metaphysis. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:370–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murphy SB, Simon SR, Kijewski PK, Wilkinson RH, Griscom NT. Femoral anteversion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:1169–1176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Murray RO. The aetiology of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. Br J Radiol. 1965;38:810–824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murray RO, Duncan C. Athletic activity in adolescence as an etiological factor in degenerative hip disease. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1971;53:406–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J. The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:556–560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parsons FG. The characteristics of the English thigh-bone. J Anat Physiol. 1914;48(Pt 3):238–267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pick JW, Stack JK, Anson BJ. Measurements on the human femur. I. Lengths, diameters and angles. Q Bull Northwest Univ Med Sch. 1941;15:281–290.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers SP. A method for determining the angle of torsion of the neck of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg. 1931;13:821–824.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ryder CT, Crane L. Measuring femoral anteversion: the problem and a method. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1953;35:321–328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siebenrock KA, Wahab KH, Werlen S, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R. Abnormal extension of the femoral head epiphysis as a cause of cam impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;418:54–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Solomon L. Patterns of osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1976;58:176–184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soutter R, Bradford EH. Twists in normal and in the congenitally dislocated femora. NY Med J. 1903;78:1071–1077.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stulberg SD, Cordell LD, Harris WH, Ramsey PL, MacEwen GD. Unrecognized childhood hip disease: a major cause of idiopathic osteoarthritis of the hip. Hip: Proceedings of the Third Open Scientific Meeting of the Hip Society. St Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 1975:212–228.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tönnis D, Heinecke A. Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:1747–1770.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weiner DS, Cook AJ, Hoyt WA Jr, Oravec CE. Computed tomography in the measurement of femoral anteversion. Orthopedics. 1978;1:299–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul A. Toogood
    • 1
  • Anthony Skalak
    • 2
  • Daniel R. Cooperman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine and University Hospitals Case Medical CenterCleveland HeightsUSA
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine and University Hospitals Case Medical CenterClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations