Advertisement

Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 289–291 | Cite as

Does the anteroposterior diameter of the bony spinal canal reflect its size? An anatomical study

  • R Gepstein
  • Y Folman
  • P Sagiv
  • Y Ben David
  • T Hallel
Original Articles

Summary

Nine anatomical parameters that may have a relation to the spinal canal size were directly measured in each of 594 cervical and lumbar vertebrae from young adult cadaver skeletons. The anteroposterior diameter of the spinal canal was the only parameter which could be statistically correlated with its cross-sectional area (P<0.05), and hence justifies the accepted practice of its use as an indicator of bony spinal canal size.

Key words

Bony spinal canal Spinal stenosis Lumbar vertebrae 

Le diamètre sagittal du canal vertébral est-il un reflet de sa taille réelle? Etudes anatomiques

Résumé

Neuf paramètres intéressant la taille du canal vertébral ont été mesurés directement sur 594 vertèbres cervicales et lombaires provenant de squelettes d'adultes jeunes. Le diamètre sagittal du canal vertébral s'est révélé être le seul paramètre pouvant être statistiquement corrélé avec la surface de sa section transversale (P<0.05). Ce résultat justifie l'utilisation généralement admise de ce paramètre comme indicateur de la taille du canal vertébral.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnoldi CC, Brodsky AE, Cauchois J, et al (1976) Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment syndromes. Definition and classification. Clin Orthop 115: 4–5Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eisenstein S (1977) Morphometry and pathological anatomy of the lumbar spine in South African negroes and caucasoids with specific reference to spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 59: 173–180Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kornberg M, Rechtine GR (1985) Quantity assessment of the fifth lumbar spinal canal by computed tomography in symptomatic L4–5 disc disease. Spine 10: 328–330Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    MacDonald EB, Porter RW, Hibbert CS, et al (1984) The relationship between spinal canal diameter and back pain in coal miners. J Occup Med 26: 23–28Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Porter RW, Hibbert CS, Wicks M (1978) The spinal canal in symptomatic lumbar disc lesions. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 60: 485–487Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Postacchini F, Ripani M, Carpano S (1983) Morphometry of the lumbar vertebrae. Clin Orthop 172: 296–303Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robertson GH, Liewellyn HJ, Taveras JM (1973) The narrow lumbar spinal canal syndrome. Radiology 107: 89–92Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shonstrom NSR, Bolender FN, Spengler DM (1985) The pathomorphology of spine stenosis as seen on CT scans of the lumbar spine. Spine 10: 806–811Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uden A, Johnsson KE, Jonsson K, Pettersson H (1985) Myelography in the elderly and the diagnosis of spinal stenosis. Spine 10: 171–174Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verbiest H (1975) Pathomorphologic aspects of developmental lumbar stenosis. Orthop Clin North Am 6: 177–196Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • R Gepstein
    • 1
  • Y Folman
    • 2
  • P Sagiv
    • 1
  • Y Ben David
    • 3
  • T Hallel
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopaedic DepartmentMeir HospitalKfar SavaIsrael
  2. 2.Orthopaedic DepartmentHillel Yaffe Hospital HaderaIsrael
  3. 3.Anatomy Department, Sackler Medical SchoolTel-Aviv UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations