Morphometric Analysis of Foramen Magnum in Adult Dry Skulls in Dakshina Kannada

Abstract

The objectives of the present study were to determine the type and morphometric measurements of Foramen magnum (FM) in dry human skulls of Dakshina Kannada district of Southern India. Material and Methods: The present study included 50 adult human skulls of which 32 were males and 18 females. The type of foramen magnum observed macroscopically. Antero-posterior (APD) and transverse diameters (TD) were measured by using stainless steel electronic digital callipers. Foramen magnum Index (FMI) was calculated by using formula FMI = APD/TD. Results: Present study observed 4 types of shapes of foramen magnum, among them ovoid type was found higher frequency (48%). Antero-posterior diameter is a distance between Basion and Opisthion 34.95 mm in males and 34.58 mm in females out of 34.81 mm. The transverse diameters 28.66 mm in males and 28.84 mm in females out of 28.73 mm. Foramen magnum index ≥ 1.2 was considered as ovoid and found in 56% of skulls. Conclusion: We believe that the present study provided additional information about the morphology and morphometric analysis of foramen magnum which is important to radiological, and neurosurgical literature.

Anatomical Observation of Different Shapes of Foramen Magnum and Its Clinical Implications: A Study in Dry Adult Human Skulls of Indian Population

“…In the present study, tetragonal shape of foramen magnum was in 1.73% cases (06 out of 347 skulls).The finding of the present study is lower than the findings of Radhika PM et al [27](2014)in 6%, Bhaskar R et al [11](2017) in 30%, Veeramani R et al [15] 1 & 2) These higher percentages may be due to racial differences as the population in the above studies differs from population of the present study.…”

“…In the present study, round shape foramen magnum was found in 30.84% cases (107 out of 347 skulls). The value of this study was almost similar to the values of studies done by Riyaz ZH et al [13](2015) in 29.50% and Chandekar KS et al [24](2017) in 30.43 % cases; lower than the findings of Muthukumar N et al [25](2005) in 54% and Ajay R et al [26] (2015) in 35% cases; higher than the findings of Chethan P et al [5](2012) in 22.6%, Radhika PM et al [27] (2014) in 20%, Ganapathy A et al [28](2014) in 9%, Gopalkrishana K et al [29] (2015) in 25%, Saini K [8](2015) in 19%, Bhaskar R et al [11] (2017) in 16%, Veeramani R et al [15] (2018) in 15%, Aragão JA et al [19](2014) in 15.5%, Kumar A et al [16](2015) in 20%, Pires LA et al [17] (2016) in 24.67%, Revankar S et al [21] in 17.5%, Sharma DK et al [22] in 14.67% and Sharma A et al [23] in 3.9% cases. (Table1 & 2) This difference may be due to population variation.…”