RESEARCH
The Average Size and Position of the Umbilicus in Young
Men and Women
Deborah Yu, MD,* Wendy M. Novicoff, PhD,† and Thomas J. Gampper, MD*
Introduction: Abdominoplasty was the third most common cosmetic surgical
procedure in 2012. The umbilicus is transposed within the abdominal skin flap
during this procedure. Few studies address the size and location of the umbilicus
with precise measurements as well as those that do report on a heterogeneous
population. The goal of our study was to determine the average size and position
of the ideal umbilicus by limiting the study to young men and women of normal
body habitus.
Methods: Subjects were recruited in a University of Virginia Institutional
Review Board–approved study. Demographics of the subjects were recorded.
Each subject's umbilicus was assessed for height, width, and position relative
to existing landmarks.
Results: Eighty subjects met the inclusion criteria: 43 women and 37 men. Most
of the subjects were white (72.5%). The mean ± SD BMI was 22.4 ± 2.5 kg/m2.
The mean ± SD height and width of the umbilicus was 2.1 ± 0.6 cm and
2.3 ± 0.7 cm, respectively. The umbilicus was located at a mean ± SD of
−0.7 ± 1.3 cm in relation to the iliac crest (crest at zero). There were differences
seen in the position between men and women. There were no statistical differ-
ences in measurements between the races.
Conclusion: Our study serves as a guide for umbilical positioning with mean
measurements for men and women, and categorized by sex and race.
Key Words: umbilicus, size of umbilicus, position of umbilicus, abdominoplasty,
abdominal wall reconstruction
(Ann Plast Surg 2016;76: 346–348)
I n 2012, abdominoplasty ranked as the third most common cosmetic
surgical procedure, with 156,508 procedures performed that year.1
As part of the abdominoplasty procedure, the umbilicus is transposed
within the abdominal skin flap. Despite the prevalence of this proce-
dure, few studies address the size, shape, and location of the umbilicus.
Baroudi2 described in his 1975 paper that a normal navel resem-
bled a round, depressed scar and measured 1.5 to 2 cm in diameter.
These characteristics were not based on any objective data taken from
subjects. Three years later, in 1978, Dubou and Ousterhout3 reported
their measurements of umbilical position from 100 nonobese patients
(no BMI reported). Of the 100 subjects, 36 were men and 64 were
women, ranging in age from 18 to 69 years.3 No surgical or pregnancy
histories were noted. They reported that 96% of their subjects' umbili-
cuses were at the height of the iliac crest, with the mean distance from
the umbilicus to the xiphoid of 15.5 cm (range, 11–20 cm) and from
the umbilicus to the pubis of 15.03 cm (range, 10–18 cm).3 The mean
distance was 0.1 cm below the iliac crest (range, 2.5 cm below to
2 cm above).3
Received October 21, 2014, and accepted for publication, after revision, December
27, 2014.
From the *Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, and †Departments of Pub-
lic Health Sciences and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia Health Sys-
tem, Charlottesville, VA.
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.
Reprints: Thomas J. Gampper, MD, Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery,
University of Virginia Health System, PO Box 800376, Charlottesville, VA
22908. E-mail: Tjg6f@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 0148-7043/16/7603–0346
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000478
346 www.annalsplasticsurgery.com
Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Craig et al4 described the ideal woman umbilicus based on
a panel's review of photographs. Their results suggested that a small
T- or vertical-shaped umbilicus that had a superior hood or shelf was
the most aesthetically appealing.4
The goal of our study was to determine the average size and po-
sition of the umbilicus in men and women in young subjects. The data
will serve to aid in umbilical transposition during abdominoplasty as
well as any other abdominal wall reconstruction procedures.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
This study was approved by the University of Virginia Institu-
tional Review Board for Health Sciences Research (IRB HSR). Sub-
jects were recruited using IRB HSR–approved flyers and the IRB
HSR clinical trials website. Participants were screened for the exclusion
criteria before the study: no history of scars on the abdomen (striae,
operative scars, etc.), no history of pregnancy, and no weight loss of
more than 10 pounds. Each subject's age, sex, race, height, and weight
were recorded. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated for each subject.
Each subject's umbilicus was assessed for height, width, and overall
shape. The following measurements were also taken to denote the
position of the umbilicus in relation to existing landmarks: transverse
distance of the umbilicus to the right and left iliac crests, umbilicus po-
sition relative to the iliac crest level (iliac crest was zero), umbilicus to
xiphoid, and umbilicus to pubis. Photographs of the participants with
no identifying factors were taken at the visit with the subjects' consent.
All measurements were taken by 1 of 2 investigators. All photographs
were taken by one investigator.
Statistics
Descriptives and frequencies were calculated for all variables.
Univariate correlations were computed to examine relationships be-
tween variables. Two-sample independent t tests were used to com-
pare differences in means between groups. All data were analyzed
using SPSS version 21 (IBM, Armonk, NY). For this study, α was set
a priori at 0.05.
RESULTS
Eighty subjects met the inclusion criteria. There were 43 women
and 37 men. Most [72.5% (58/80)] of the subjects were white. The
remaining 22 subjects encompassed 3 African Americans (3.8%),
17 Asians (21.3%), and 2 Hispanics (2.5%). The mean ± SD age was
22.4 ± 4.8 years, with a range from 18 to 39 years. The mean ± SD
BMI for all subjects was 22.4 ± 2.5 kg/m2, with a range from 17.4 to
29.9 kg/m2. There were a variety of umbilical shapes noted by the inves-
tigators, including, crescent, round, triangular, and oval (vertical, trans-
verse, or oblique). The mean ± SD height of the umbilicus was
2.1 ± 0.6 cm, with a range of 1.3 to 3.7 cm; and the mean ± SD width
was 2.3 ± 0.7 cm (range, 1.0–4.0 cm). The umbilicus was located at a
mean ± SD of −0.7 ± 1.3 cm in relation to the iliac crest (crest,zero;
range, 5 cm below to 3 cm above; Table 1).
The mean ± SD distance from the right iliac crest to the umbili-
cus center for all subjects was 14.5 ± 1.4 cm, and the distance from the
left iliac crest to the umbilicus center was 14.4 ± 1.2 cm. The mean ±
SD distance from the superior edge of the umbilicus to the xiphoid
was 17.5 ± 2.0 cm. The mean ± SD distance from the inferior edge of
Annals of Plastic Surgery • Volume 76, Number 3, March 2016
Annals of Plastic Surgery • Volume 76, Number 3, March 2016 Average Size and Position of the Umbilicus

the umbilicus to the superior edge of the pubis was 13.9 ± 1.8 cm. The
only measurements that had a significant correlation with BMI were TABLE 2. Age and Measurements of Same 8 Parameters From
the distances from the umbilicus center to the right and left iliac Table 1 of Men and Women
crests (P = 0.000 for both). No measurement was significantly corre-
lated with age (Table 1). Men Women
Age, yr 22.5 ± 4.7 22.4 ± 4.9
Differences in Sex BMI, kg/m2 23.0 ± 2.3 21.9 ± 2.5*
The mean ± SD age of the man subjects was 22.5 ± 4.7 years, Umbilical height, cm 2.1 ± 0.7 2.1 ± 0.5
and that of the woman subjects was 22.4 ± 4.9 years. The mean ± SD Umbilical width, cm 2.1 ± 0.6 2.4 ± 0.7
BMI of the man subjects was 23.0 ± 2.3 kg/m2, and that of the woman Umbilical location, cm; iliac crest, zero −1.0 ± 1.3 −0.4 ± 1.2*
subjects was 21.9 ± 2.5 kg/m2. The mean ± SD height of the umbilicus Right iliac crest to umbilicus, cm 15.1 ± 1.4 14.0 ± 1.2*
in the women was 2.1 ± 0.5 cm, and that in the men was 2.1 ± 0.7 cm. Left iliac crest to umbilicus, cm 14.9 ± 1.2 13.9 ± 1.0*
The mean ± SD width of the umbilicus in the women was 2.4 ± 0.7 cm, Xiphoid to umbilicus, cm 18.0 ± 2.0 17.1 ± 1.9*
and that in the men was 2.1 ± 0.6 cm and. The umbilicus was located at
Umbilicus to pubis, cm 14.1 ± 2.1 13.8 ± 1.4
a mean ± SD of −1.0 ± 1.3 cm in relation to the iliac crest in the men
and at a mean ± SD of −0.4 ± 1.2 in the women (Table 2). All numbers are expressed as mean ± SD.
The mean ± SD distance from the right iliac crest to the umbili- *Significant difference between the groups P < 0.05.
cus center was 15.1 ± 1.4 cm in the men and 14.0 ± 1.2 cm in the
women. The mean ± SD distance from the left iliac crest to the umbili-
cus center was 14.9 ± 1.2 cm in the men and 13.9 ± 1.0 cm in the the umbilicus by group were 2.1 ± 0.6 cm for the whites,
women. The mean ± SD distance from the superior edge of the umbi- 2.0 ± 0.4 cm for the Asians, 1.9 ± 0.5 cm for the African Americans,
licus to the xiphoid was 18.0 ± 2.0 cm in the men and 17.1 ± 1.9 cm and 1.8 ± 0.2 cm for the Hispanics. The mean ± SD widths of the um-
in the women. The mean ± SD distance from the inferior edge of the bilicus were 2.3 ± 0.7 cm for the whites, 2.3 ± 0.6 cm for the Asians,
umbilicus to the superior edge of the pubis was 14.1 ± 2.1 cm in the 2.1 ± 0.2 cm for the African Americans, and 2.1 ± 1.5 cm for the His-
men and 13.8 ± 1.4 cm in the women (Table 2). panics. The umbilicus was located at a mean ± SD of −0.7 ± 1.3 cm in
There was a significant difference in BMI between the sexes relation to the iliac crest for the whites, −0.9 ± 1.1 cm for the Asians,
(P = 0.046), with men having a slightly higher BMI for our study group. 0.1 ± 2.1 cm for the African Americans, and 0.0 ± 0.0 cm for the His-
The measurements of statistically significant difference between the panics (Table 3)
2 sexes were the distance above/below in relation to the iliac crest The mean ± SD distances from the right and left iliac crests to
(P = 0.049), the distance from the iliac crests to the umbilicus center the umbilicus center were 14.8 ± 1.4 and 14.6 ± 1.2 cm for the whites,
(P = 0.000 on measurement from the right iliac crest; P = 0.000 on 13.7 ± 1.3 and 13.7 ± 0.8 cm for the Asians, 13.2 ± 1.2 and
measurement from the left iliac crest), and the distance from the xiphoid 13.7 ± 1.2 cm for the African Americans, and 14.3 ± 0.4 and
to the superior aspect of the umbilicus (P = 0.043). 13.0 ± 0.7 cm for the Hispanics. The mean ± SD distances from the
superior edge of the umbilicus to the xiphoid was 17.7 ± 2.1 cm for
the whites, 17.1 ± 1.9 cm for the Asian group, 16.9 ± 1.5 cm for the
Differences in Race African American group, and 18.3 ± 0.6 cm for the Hispanic group.
The mean ± SD ages of the racial groups are as follows: white The mean ± SD distance from the inferior edge of the umbilicus to
subjects, 22.9 ± 5.3 years; Asians, 20.6 ± 2.8 years; African Americans, the superior edge of the pubis was 14.2 ± 1.9 cm for the white group,
23.3 ± 4.2 years; and Hispanic subjects, 20.5 ± 0.7 years. The mean ± SD 13.3 ± 1.2 cm for the Asian group, 11.9 ± 0.3 cm for the African
BMIs of the groups are the following: white group, 22.7 ± 2.4 kg/m2; American group, and 13.9 ± 1.3 cm for the Hispanic group (Table 3).
Asian group, 21.8 ± 2.5 kg/m2; African American group, 23.0 ± 2.6 kg/m2; Using analysis of variance, the only statistical difference between
and Hispanic group, 18.9 ± 1.7 kg/m2. The mean ± SD heights of the groups was seen in the distance from the center of the umbilicus to
the right and left iliac crests (P = 0.010 and P = 0.005, respectively).

TABLE 1. Age and Measurements of 8 Parameters (BMI,

Umbilical Height, Umbilical Width, Umbilical Location in Relation DISCUSSION
to the Iliac Crest, Distance from the Right Iliac Crest to Umbilicus,
Distance From Left Iliac Crest to Umbilicus, Distance from the Previous investigations of umbilical position were either sub-
Xiphoid to the Umbilicus, and Distance from the Umbilicus to jective or nondiscriminatory with respect to age, weight, or previous
the Pubis) of All Subjects pregnancy, surgery, and significant weight loss. Because the goal of
abdominoplasty is to restore youthful contours, our study quantifies
All Subjects the size and position of the umbilicus in young healthy subjects to serve
as a reference. There were a variety of umbilical shapes encountered, in-
Age, yr 22.4 ± 4.8 cluding crescent, round, triangular, and oval (vertical, transverse, or
Body mass index, kg/m2 22.4 ± 2.5 oblique). The most common umbilical shape noted in our study was a
Umbilical height, cm 2.1 ± 0.6 round shape in both men and women, with the oval shape being the
Umbilical width, cm 2.3 ± 0.7 second most common. This result is consistent with previously de-
Umbilical location, cm, iliac crest(0), cm −0.7 ± 1.3 scribed “normal” umbilicus shape as being a “round, depressed scar.”
2
Right Iliac crest to umbilicus, cm 14.5 ± 1.4
However, the mean ± SD height of the umbilicus in our study was
2.1 ± 0.6 cm with a range of 1.3 to 3.7 cm and the mean ± SD width
Left Iliac crest to umbilicus, cm 14.4 ± 1.2
was 2.3 ± 0.7 cm (range, 1.0-4.0 cm), which is consistent with a trans-
Xiphoid to umbilicus, cm 17.5 ± 2.0 verse oval shape. Interestingly, in a previously published study, neither
Umbilicus to pubis, cm 13.9 ± 1.8 the round or transverse oval shapes scored the highest in aesthetic
All numbers are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. appeal.4 Our mean size of the umbilicus is consistent with previously
described normal umbilicuses.2

© 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. www.annalsplasticsurgery.com 347

Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Yu et al Annals of Plastic Surgery • Volume 76, Number 3, March 2016

TABLE 3. Age and Measurements of Same 8 Parameters From Table 1 of the Different Racial Groups (Whites, Asians, African Americans,
and Hispanics)

Whites Asians African Americans Hispanics

Age, yr 22.9 ± 5.3 20.6 ± 2.8 23.3 ± 4.2 20.5 ± 0.7
BMI, kg/m2 22.7 ± 2.4 21.8 ± 2.5 23.0 ± 2.6 18.9 ± 2.5
Umbilical height, cm 2.1 ± 0.6 2.0 ± 0.4 1.9 ± 0.5 1.8 ± 0.2
Umbilical width, cm 2.3 ± 0.7 2. ± 0.6 2.1 ± 0.2 2.1 ± 1.5
Umbilical location, cm; iliac crest, zero −0.7 ± 1.3 −0.9 ± 1.1 0.1 ± 2.1 0.0 ± 0.0
Right iliac crest to umbilicus, cm 14.8 ± 1.4 13.7 ± 1.3 13.2 ± 1.2 14.3 ± 0.4*
Left iliac crest to umbilicus, cm 14.6 ± 1.2 13.7 ± 0.8 13.7 ± 1.2 13.0 ± 0.7*
Xiphoid to umbilicus, cm 17.7 ± 2.1 17.1 ± 1.9 16.9 ± 1.5 18.3 ± 0.6
Umbilicus to pubis, cm 14.2 ± 1.9 13.3 ± 1.2 11.9 ± 0.3 13.9 ± 1.3
All numbers are expressed as means ± SD.
*Significant difference between the groups was P < 0.05).

The umbilicus was located at a mean ± SD of −0.7 ± 1.3 cm in
relation to the iliac crest (crest, 0; range, 5 cm below to 3 cm above),
which is similar to previous publications but slightly different from
the prevailing school of thought of placement of the umbilicus at the
iliac crest.3 The umbilicus was midline as the measurements from
umbilicus center to the right and left iliac crests were similar. The um-
bilicus was closer to the pubis compared with the xiphoid in our study.
The proximity to the pubis was also found by Dobou and Ousterhout,
but the difference between the 2 mean measurements was smaller in
their study (difference of only 0.25 cm in their study versus nearly
4 cm in our study).3
Our study was unique in that we separated the measurements
according to sex and race, which had not been published previously.
There were several statistically significant measurements that differed
between the 2 sexes: the distance above/below in relation to the iliac
crest (P = 0.049; the distance from the iliac crests to the umbilicus
center (P = 0.000 on measurement from right iliac crest; P = 0.000 on
measurement from left iliac crest); and the distance from the xiphoid
to the superior aspect of the umbilicus (P = 0.043). Conclusions that
can be made from our study are that the umbilicus is located more
inferiorly in men compared with women and that on average the dis-
tance to the iliac crests is shorter in women, the latter of which is likely
related to differing body types by sex, specifically the wider hips in
women compared with men.
Using analysis of variance, the only statistical difference be-
tween racial groups was seen in the distance from the center of the
umbilicus to the right and left iliac crests (P = 0.010 and P = 0.005,
respectively). This finding could be explained by differing truncal
shapes across the various races, which should be taken into account
when reconstructing an umbilicus. Otherwise, the remaining measure-
ments were similar across the races.
Our study is limited by low subject numbers. With larger non-
white subject numbers, more conclusions may be made about the dif-
ferences in measurements and position of the umbilicus.
CONCLUSION
Our study serves as a guide for umbilical reconstruction with
mean measurements for men and women.
REFERENCES
1. The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Cosmetic Surgery
National Data Bank Statistics 2012. Available at http://www.surgery.org/
sites/default/files/ASAPS-2012-Stats.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2014.
2. Baroudi R. Umbilicaplasty. Clin Plast Surg. 1975;2:431–448.
3. Dubou R, Ousterhout DK. Placement of the umbilicus in an abdominoplasty.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1978;61:291–293.
4. Craig SB, Faller MS, Pucket CL. In search of the ideal female umbilicus.
Plast Reconstr Sur. 2000;105:389–392.

348 www.annalsplasticsurgery.com © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.