Differentiating human versus non-human bone by exploring the nutrient foramen: implications for forensic anthropology

Abstract

One of the roles of a forensic anthropologist is to assist medico-legal investigations in the identification of human skeletal remains. In some instances, only small fragments of bone may be present. In this study, a non-destructive novel technique is presented to distinguish between human and non-human long bones. This technique is based on the macroscopic and computed tomography (CT) analysis of nutrient foramina. The nutrient foramen of long bone diaphyses transmits the nutrient artery which provides much of the oxygen and nutrients to the bone. The nutrient foramen and its canal were analysed in six femora and humeri of human, sheep (Ovies aries) and pig (Sus scrofa) species. The location, position and direction of the nutrient foramina were measured macroscopically. The length of the canal, angle of the canal, circumference and area of the entrance of the foramen were measured from CT images. Macroscopic analysis revealed the femora nutrient foramina are more proximal, whereas humeri foramina are more distal. The human bones and sheep humerus conform to the perceived directionality, but the pig bones and sheep femur do not. Amongst the parameters measured in the CT analysis, the angle of the canal had a discriminatory power. This study shows the potential of this technique to be used independently or complementary to other methods in distinguishing between human and non-human bone in forensic anthropology.

Differentiating Nutrient Artery Canals of the Femur versus Fracture Lines in Patients with Total Hip Arthroplasty on Plain Radiographs

“…Similarly, our study also showed that all nutrient artery canals of the femur in the cortex on CTL radiographs course upward obliquely from posterodistal to anteroproximal direction. This fact supports the suggestion of Johnson et al 16 that nutrient artery canal could be used to discriminate between human and nonhuman bone.…”

“…Nutrient arteries and their canals have been studied by observing the dry bones3413 or perfused bones,1415 radiological study,14 and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) 1116. However, there have been few relevant data on differentiating nutrient artery canals from fracture lines on plain radiographs.…”

Sample specific sex estimation method using parameters around dominant nutrient foramina in unknown femur bones collection of contemporary Egyptians

“…The inclusion criteria were (1) absence of evidence of pathological or curatorial damage; (2) being adults as evidenced by the closure of epiphyseal growth plates and (3) the new subset of measurements were performed when at least one well-defined nutrient foramen (NF) could be located on the diaphysis. The dominant nutrient foramina were initially identified in the unsexed sample by the elevated margins and distinct groove leading to the external orifice (Hughes, 1952) and by being capable of admitting at least the tip of a 24-gauge hypodermic needle, whereas those smaller were not analysed (Johnson et al, 2017).…”

Using nutrient foramina to differentiate human from non-human long bone fragments in bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology

“…Even fewer studies have focused on the comparison between human and non-human nutrient foramina, in the field of comparative anatomy or forensic anthropology. Johnson et al (2017) measured the location (based on the calculation of the foraminal index, not used in this study), direction, length, angle, circumference and area of the main nutrient canal in human, pig and sheep humeri and femora, in order to identify new parameters that could be used in the differentiation between human and non-human bones in forensic contexts. In this latter study, the circumference and cross-sectional area of the nutrient canal were not found to be useful for human/non-human differentiation, as there were no significant differences among the species considered.…”

“…A limitation of this study, however, is that only 36 bones were analysed, and only two non-human species were considered. Furthermore, since Johnson et al's (2017) study focused only on humeri and femora, its results might not be applicable in cases where other long bones such as radii, ulnae or tibiae are found.…”