European Spine Journal

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 768–773 | Cite as

A morphological adaptation of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae to lumbar hyperlordosis in young and adult females

  • Youssef Masharawi
  • Gali Dar
  • Smadar Peleg
  • Nili Steinberg
  • Bahaa Medlej
  • Hila May
  • Janan Abbas
  • Israel Hershkovitz
Original Article

Abstract

The lumbar shape in females is thought to be unique, compensating for lumbar hyperlordosis. Yet, the morphological adaptation of various vertebral parameters in the thoracic and lumbar spine to this unique posture in young and adult females has only been partially addressed in the literature. Our aim was to investigate the gender association to vertebral shape in the thoracic and lumbar spine as a possible adaptation to lumbar hyperlordosis in young and adult females. A three-dimensional digitizer was used to measure the vertebral body sagittal wedging, relative spinous process thickness, and relative interfacet width at the T1–L5 level. Two hundred and forty complete, non-pathological skeletons of adults and 32 skeletons of young individuals were assessed. Three major results were found to be independent of age and ethnicity: (a) VB sagittal wedging in females was significantly less kyphotic than males from T9 to L2 (T11 excluded) with a cumulative mean difference of 8.8°; (b) females had a significantly relatively thinner lumbar spinous processes and (c) females had a relatively wider superior interfacet distance (T9–T10 and L1–L4) than males. We conclude that the combination of less kyphotic VB wedging in the lower thoracic and upper lumbar vertebrae, relatively greater interspinous space and larger interfacet width in the lumbar spine in females are key architectural elements in the lumbar hyperlordosis in females and may compensate for the bipedal obstetric load during pregnancy.

Keywords

Lumbar hyperlordosis Vertebral wedging Vertebral shape Lumbar interfacet width Spinous process thickness 

References

  1. 1.
    Bergenudd H, Nilsson B, Uden A, Willner S (1989) Bone mineral content, gender, body posture, and build in relation to back pain in middle age. Spine 14:577–579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunlop R, Adams A, Hutton W (1984) Disc space narrowing and the lumbar facet joints. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66:706–710PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lorenz M, Patwardhan A, Vanderby R (1983) Load-bearing characteristics of lumbar facets in normal and surgically altered spinal segments. Spine 8:122–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Love T, Fagan A, Fraser R (1999) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: developmental or acquired? J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:670–674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Masharawi Y, Rothschild B, Dar G, Peleg S, Been E, Robinson D, Hershkovitz I (2004) Facet orientation in the thoraco-lumbar spine: three-dimensional anatomical and biomechanical analysis. Spine 29:1755–1763CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Masharawi Y, Rothschild B, Salame K, Dar G, Peleg S, Hershkovitz I (2005) Facet tropism and interfacet shape in the thoraco-lumbar spine: characterization and biomechanical interpretation. Spine 30:E281–E292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Masharawi Y, Alperovitch-Najenson D, Dar G, Peleg S, Steinberg N, Rothschild R, Salame K, Hershkovitz I (2007) Lumbar facet orientation in spondylolysis: a skeletal study. Spine 32:E176–E180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Masharawi Y, Kjaer P, Bendix T, Manniche C, May H, Mirovski Y, Anekshtein Y, Jensen TS, Hershkovitz I (2009) Lumbar facet and interfacet shape variation during growth in boys and girls from the general population: a three years MRI follow-up study. Spine 15:408–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Masharawi Y, Dar G, Peleg S, Steinberg N, Alperovitch-Najenson D, Salame K, Hershkovitz I (2007) Lumbar facet anatomy changes in spondylolysis: a comparative skeletal study. Eur Spine J 16:993–999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norton B, Sahrmann S, Van Dillen L (2004) Differences in measurements of lumbar curvature related to gender and low back pain. J Orth Sports Phys Ther 34:524–534Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parent S, Labelle H, Skalli W, Latimer B, de Guise J (2002) Morphometric analysis of anatomic scoliotic specimens. Spine 27:2305–2311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanderson P, Fraser R (1996) The Influence of pregnancy on the development of degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 78:951–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scoles P, Latimer B, DigIovanni B, Vargo E, Bauza S, Jellema L (1991) Vertebral alterations in Scheuermann’s kyphosis. Spine 16:509–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tanner JM (1990) Fetus into man: physical growth from conception to maturity, 6th edn. Cambridge, MA, pp 165–171Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taylor J, Twomey L (1984) Sexual dimorphism in human vertebral body shape. J Anat 138:281–286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whitcome K, Shapiro L, Lieberman D (2007) Fetal load and the evolution of lumbar lordosis in bipedal hominins. Nature 450:1075–1078CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Youdas J, Garett T, Harmsen W, Suman V, Carey J (1996) Lumbar lordosis and pelvic inclination of asymptomatic adults. Phy Ther 76:1066–1081Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Youssef Masharawi
    • 1
  • Gali Dar
    • 2
    • 3
  • Smadar Peleg
    • 2
  • Nili Steinberg
    • 2
    • 4
  • Bahaa Medlej
    • 2
  • Hila May
    • 2
  • Janan Abbas
    • 2
  • Israel Hershkovitz
    • 2
  1. 1.Spinal Research Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, The Stanley Steyer School of Health Professions, Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel-Aviv UniversityRamat AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy and Anthropology, Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel-Aviv UniversityRamat AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health StudiesHaifa UniversityMount CarmelIsrael
  4. 4.Zinman College of Physical Education and Sports SciencesWingate InstituteNetanyaIsrael

Personalised recommendations