SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anatomy / 2026 / Volume: 20 Issue: 1

Relationship between piriformis distal insertion and femoral torsion angle

Ally Mcmillen(Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine)
Noora Chandasir(Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine)
Humza Omar(Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine)
Aveline Nels(Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine)
Philip A. Fabrizio(Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine)
Journal
Anatomy
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-05-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

When considered alongside documented variability in piriformis distal attachment, these results call into question simplified biomechanical models that assume a predictable reversal of piriformis function with hip flexion and support a more cautious interpretation of piriformis biomechanics.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Biomechanical models commonly describe the piriformis muscle as reversing function from a hip external rotator to an internal rotator with increasing hip flexion.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The piriformis muscle was examined in 63 femora from 38 embalmed donor bodies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When considered alongside documented variability in piriformis distal attachment, these results call into question simplified biomechanical models that assume a predictable reversal of piriformis function with hip flexion and support a more cautious interpretation of piriformis biomechanics.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:femur · hip torsion · piriformis

Abstract

Objectives: Biomechanical models commonly describe the piriformis muscle as reversing function from a hip external rotator to an internal rotator with increasing hip flexion. These models often assume a uniform distal tendon attachment, despite growing anatomical evidence of variability. Femoral torsion is a clinically measurable parameter that may influence piriformis tendon orientation and function. Methods: The piriformis muscle was examined in 63 femora from 38 embalmed donor bodies. The position of the piriformis distal tendon attachment on the superior surface of the greater trochanter was measured relative to its midpoint and classified as anterior or posterior. Femoral angle of torsion was measured using direct anatomical methods with a goniometer. The relationship between femoral torsion and piriformis tendon position was analyzed using Pearson’s correlation. Results: Across the full sample, no significant relationship was identified between femoral torsion and piriformis tendon position (r=0.13, p=0.31). Right femora demonstrated no meaningful association, whereas left femora showed a statistically significant moderate positive correlation, with increasing femoral torsion associated with a more posterior tendon position (r=0.38, p=0.04). No consistent or statistically significant patterns were observed when analyses were stratified by sex. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that the relationship between femoral torsion and piriformis tendon position is inconsistent and not bilaterally uniform. When considered alongside documented variability in piriformis distal attachment, these results call into question simplified biomechanical models that assume a predictable reversal of piriformis function with hip flexion and support a more cautious interpretation of piriformis biomechanics.

🔖

Cite This Article

Mcmillen, A., Chandasir, N., Omar, H., Nels, A., Fabrizio, P. A. (2026). Relationship between piriformis distal insertion and femoral torsion angle. Anatomy, Volume: 20 Issue: 1. https://ajindex.com/articles/1189899

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (26)

  1. Delp SL, Hess WE, Hungerford DS, Jones LC. Variation of rotation moment arms with hip flexion. J Biomech 1999;32:493–501.
  2. Kapandji IA. The physiology of the joints. Vol. 2, The lower limb. 5th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1982. p. 60–1.
  3. Dostal WF, Soderberg GL, Andrews JG. Actions of hip muscles. Phys Ther 1986;66:351–9.
  4. Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMR. Clinically oriented anatomy. 6th ed. Baltimore (MD): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010. p. 311–3.
  5. Standring S, Borley NR, Healy JC, Collins P, Crossman AR, Gatzoulis MA, Johnson D, Mahadevan V, Newell R, Wigley CB, editors. Gray’s anatomy: the anatomical basis of clinical practice. 40th ed. London: Elsevier; 2008. 1576 p.
  6. Fabrizio P, Myers M, Rasicci D. The anatomy of the distal attachment of the piriformis muscle: a pilot study. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 2011;41:A84.
  7. Solomon LB, Lee YC, Callary SA, Beck M, Howie DW. Anatomy of piriformis, obturator internus and obturator externus: implications for the posterior surgical approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:1317–24.
  8. Pine J, Binns M, Wright P, Soames R. Piriformis and obturator internus morphology: a cadaveric study. Clin Anat 2011;24:70–6.
  9. Olewnik Ł, Zielinska N, Ruzik K, Podgórski M, Koptas K, Karauda P, Balcerzak A, Gonera B, Tubbs RS. Morphological variability of the piriformis muscle. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2024;83:874–85.
  10. Navarro-Zarza JE, Villaseñor-Ovies P, Vargas A, Canoso JJ, Chiapas-Gasca K, Hernández-Díaz C, Saavedra MÁ, Kalish RA. Clinical anatomy of the pelvis and hip. Reumatol Clin 2012;Suppl 2:33–8.
  11. Dutton M. Orthopaedic examination, evaluation, and intervention. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2012.
  12. Greenman PE. Principles of manual medicine. 2nd ed. Baltimore (MD): Williams & Wilkins; 1996. p. 467, 474.
  13. Vanhove F, Noppe N, Fragomen AT, Hoekstra H, Vanderschueren G, Metsemakers WJ. Standardization of torsional CT measurements of the lower limbs with threshold values for corrective osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2019;139:795–805.
  14. Tomczak RJ, Guenther KP, Rieber A, Mergo P, Ros PR, Brambs HJ. MR imaging measurement of the femoral antetorsional angle as a new technique: comparison with CT in children and adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:791–4.
  15. Scorcelletti M, Reeves ND, Rittweger J, Ireland A. Femoral anteversion: significance and measurement. J Anat 2020;237:811–26.
  16. Donati D, Giorgi F, Farì G, Tarallo L, Catani F, Tedeschi R. The influence of pelvic tilt and femoral torsion on hip biomechanics: implications for clinical assessment and treatment. Applied Sciences 2024;14:9564.
  17. Arnold AS, Komattu AV, Delp SL. Internal rotation gait: a compensatory mechanism to restore abduction capacity decreased by bone deformity. Dev Med Child Neurol 1997;39:40–4.
  18. Zhao P, Jin ZW, Kim JH, Abe H, Murakami G, Rodríguez-Vázquez JF. Differences in foetal topographical anatomy between insertion sites of the iliopsoas and gluteus medius muscles into the proximal femur: a consideration of femoral torsion. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2019;78:408–18.
  19. Docking SI, Cook J. How do tendons adapt? Going beyond tissue responses to understand positive adaptation and pathology development: a narrative review. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2019;19:300–10.
  20. Uding A, Bloom NJ, Commean PK, Hillen TJ, Patterson JD, Clohisy JC, Harris-Hayes M. Clinical tests to determine femoral version category in people with chronic hip joint pain and asymptomatic controls. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2019;39:115–22.
  21. Tomaszewski KA, Graves MJ, Henry BM, Popieluszko P, Roy J, Pękala PA, Hsieh WC, Vikse J, Walocha JA. Surgical anatomy of the sciatic nerve: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Res 2016;34:1820–7.
  22. Norbury JW, Morris J, Warren KM, Schreiber AL, Faulk C, Moore DP, Mandel S. Diagnosis and management of piriformis syndrome. Practical Neurology 2012;8:24–7.
  23. Park JC, Shim JH, Chung SH. The effects of three types of piriform muscle stretching on muscle thickness and the medial rotation angle of the coxal articulation. J Phys Ther Sci 2017;29:1811–4.
  24. Goodpaster BH, Carlson CL, Visser M, Kelley DE, Scherzinger A, Harris TB, Stamm E, Newman AB. Attenuation of skeletal muscle and strength in the elderly: the health ABC study. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2001;90:2157–65.
  25. Benjamin M, McGonagle D. The anatomical basis for disease localisation in seronegative spondyloarthropathy at entheses and related sites. J Anat 2001;199:503–26.
  26. Seeman E. Pathogenesis of bone fragility in women and men. Lancet 2002;359:1841–50.