# Morphometric Analysis and Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Reconstruction of Thai Distal Femur
## 3 Results
### Comparison of the Morphometric Parameters with Other Nationalities  
Table 5 showed the comparison result of morphometric parameters with other ethnic groups, including the Korean and Caucasian populations. The morphometric parameters consisting of ML, MAP, and LAP were significantly smaller than the Caucasian population but similar to the Korean population. However, there were also significant differences in the Korean population between the parameters MCW, LCW, WIN, and DIN. In addition, the ML/AP ratio of the Thai distal femur was lower than that of the Caucasian population.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Present Study** & **Thai [23]** & **Thai [24]** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & **Male (n = 180)** & **Male (n = 81)** & **Male (n = 30)** \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Female (n = 180)** & **Female (n = 119)** & **Female (n = 170)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ML/AP} & 1.26 \(\pm\) 0.06 (M) & 1.45 \(\pm\) 0.11 (M) * & - \\  & 1.26 \(\pm\) 0.07 (F) & 1.39 \(\pm\) 0.12 (F) * & - \\ \multirow{2}{*}{ML/MAP} & 1.18 \(\pm\) 0.05 (M) & - & 1.22 \(\pm\) 0.08 (M) * \\  & 1.18 \(\pm\) 0.07 (F) & - & 1.21 \(\pm\) 0.06 (F) * \\ \multirow{2}{*}{ML/LAP} & 1.13 \(\pm\) 0.05 (M) & - & 1.27 \(\pm\) 0.07 (M) * \\  & 1.12 \(\pm\) 0.06 (F) & - & 1.26 \(\pm\) 0.07 (F) * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Statistical significance \(p<\) 0.05.  
\end{table}
Table 4: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Present Study** & **Korean [2]** & **Caucasians [33]** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & **Male (n = 180)** & **Male (n = 88)** & **Male (n = 500)** \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Female (n = 180)** & **Female (n = 114)** & **Female (n = 340)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{TEA} & 84.90 \(\pm\) 4.04 (M) & - & - \\  & 74.16 \(\pm\) 3.38 (F) & - & - \\ \multirow{2}{*}{ML} & 75.10 \(\pm\) 3.24 (M) & 75.40 \(\pm\) 2.14 (M) & 85.90 \(\pm\) 4.70 (M) * \\  & 66.89 \(\pm\) 3.46 (F) & 66.48 \(\pm\) 2.41 (F) & 75.80 \(\pm\) 3.30 (F) * \\ \multirow{2}{*}{MAP} & 64.12 \(\pm\) 3.08 (M) & 61.22 \(\pm\) 3.06 (M) * & 65.70 \(\pm\) 3.70 (M) * \\  & 57.03 \(\pm\) 3.46 (F) & 55.25 \(\pm\) 3.02 (F) * & 59.40 \(\pm\) 3.30 (F) * \\ \multirow{2}{*}{LAP} & 66.36 \(\pm\) 3.29 (M) & 64.63 \(\pm\) 3.65 (M) * & 67.80 \(\pm\) 4.10 (M) * \\  & 59.85 \(\pm\) 2.86 (F) & 58.39 \(\pm\) 2.76 (F) * & 61.40 \(\pm\) 3.20 (F) * \\ \multirow{2}{*}{AP} & 59.89 \(\pm\) 3.18 (M) & - & 61.20 \(\pm\) 2.90 (M) * \\  & 53.12 \(\pm\) 3.25 (F) & - & 55.90 \(\pm\) 3.30 (F) * \\ \multirow{2}{*}{MCW} & 27.41 \(\pm\) 2.02 (M) & 25.78 \(\pm\) 1.85 (M) * & - \\  & 23.75 \(\pm\) 1.52 (F) & 23.46 \(\pm\) 2.39 (F) * & - \\ \multirow{2}{*}{LCW} & 26.87 \(\pm\) 1.85 (M) & 27.96 \(\pm\) 1.91 (M) * & - \\  & 22.37 \(\pm\) 1.36 (F) & 24.05 \(\pm\) 2.00 (F) * & - \\ \multirow{2}{*}{WIN} & 21.45 \(\pm\) 2.55 (M) & 21.66 \(\pm\) 2.66 (M) & - \\  & 18.67 \(\pm\) 2.11 (F) & 18.97 \(\pm\) 2.75 (F) * & - \\ \multirow{2}{*}{DIN} & 33.14 \(\pm\) 3.69 (M) & 30.05 \(\pm\) 2.05 (M) * & - \\  & 22.71 \(\pm\) 4.00 (F) & 27.16 \(\pm\) 1.85 (F) * & - \\ \multirow{2}{*}{MPC} & 40.61 \(\pm\) 2.81 (M) & - & - \\  & 36.70 \(\pm\) 2.43 (F) & - & - \\ \multirow{2}{*}{LPC} & 39.07 \(\pm\) 2.23 (M) & - & - \\  & 35.13 \(\pm\) 2.18 (F) & - & - \\ \multirow{2}{*}{ML/AP} & 1.26 \(\pm\) 0.06 (M) & - & 1.41 \(\pm\) 0.06 (M) * \\  & 1.26 \(\pm\) 0.07 (F) & - & 1.36 \(\pm\) 0.06 (F) * \\ \multirow{2}{*}{ML/MAP} & 1.18 \(\pm\) 0.05 (M) & - & - \\  & 1.18 \(\pm\) 0.07 (F) & - & - \\ \multirow{2}{*}{ML/LAP} & 1.13 \(\pm\) 0.05 (M) & - & - \\  & 1.12 \(\pm\) 0.06 (F) & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Statistical significance \(p<\) 0.05.  
\end{table}
Table 5: Comparison of the morphometric parameters with other nationalities in mean \(\pm\) SD (mm).