Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKuliukas, A.
dc.contributor.authorKuliukas, Lesley
dc.contributor.authorFranklin, D.
dc.contributor.authorFlavel, A.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T12:27:38Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T12:27:38Z
dc.date.created2015-10-29T04:09:43Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.citationKuliukas, A. and Kuliukas, L. and Franklin, D. and Flavel, A. 2015. Female pelvic shape: Distinct types or nebulous cloud? British Journal of Midwifery. 23 (7): pp. 490-496.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/21831
dc.identifier.doi10.12968/bjom.2015.23.7.490
dc.description.abstract

The objective of this study was to re-evaluate the Caldwell-Moloy (1933) classification of female pelvic shape, which has been traditionally, and still is currently, taught to students of midwifery and medicine. Using modern pelvimetric methodologies and geometric morphometric (GM) analysis techniques, we aim to elucidate whether these classic female pelvic types are an accurate reflection of the real morphometric variation present in the female human pelvis. GM analysis was carried out on sets of pelvic landmarks from scans of women living in a contemporary Western Australian population. Sixty-four anonymous female multi-detector computer tomography (MDCT) scans were used for most of the study and 51 male scans were also examined for comparison. Principle component analysis (PCA) found that there was no obvious clustering into the four distinct types of pelvis (gynaecoid, anthropoid, android and platypelloid) in the Caldwell-Moloy classification, but rather an amorphous, cloudy continuum of shape variation. Until more data is collected to confirm or deny the statistical significance of this shape variation, it is recommended that teachers and authors of midwifery, obstetrics and gynaecological texts be more cautious about continuing to promote the Caldwell-Moloy classification, as our results show no support for the long taught ‘four types’ of pelvis.

dc.publisherMA Healthcare Ltd
dc.titleFemale pelvic shape: Distinct types or nebulous cloud?
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.volume23
dcterms.source.number7
dcterms.source.startPage490
dcterms.source.endPage496
dcterms.source.issn0969-4900
dcterms.source.titleBritish Journal of Midwifery
curtin.departmentSchool of Nursing and Midwifery
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record