IJAR.2018.414

Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 7; Issue 1.1 (January 2019)

Page No.: 6089-6101

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2018.414

THORACIC PEDICLE MORPHOMETRY STUDY ON CADAVER AND CT SCAN WITH ITS CLINICAL APPLICATIONS

Ashwini Shetty *1, R.Avadhani 1, Mahesha K.B 2, Yashodhar Bhandary 3.

*1 Department of Anatomy, Yenepoya Medical College, Yenepoya University 575018, Karnataka, India.

2 Department of Orthopedics, Yenepoya Medical College, Yenepoya University Mangalore, 575018, Karnataka, India.

3 Yenepoya Research center, Yenepoya University Mangalore, 575018, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence author: Dr. Ashwini Shetty, Department of Anatomy, Yenepoya Medical College, Yenepoya University 575018, Karnataka, India.

E-Mail: drashwinishetty11@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT:

Background: Morphometric measurements of a spine in the particular geographical area will help in proper implant selection during spinal surgeries, designing of best suited implant, understanding the biomechanics and pathoanatomy of the spine, precise clinical diagnosis and management of the population under consideration.

Methods: In this study sample size was 100 [58 male and 42 female] embalmed and preserved thoracic spine [T1 to T12] aged 35 to 80 years at the time of death. Chord length [CL]: Measured from the posterior cortical entry point of the pedicle to the anterior vertebral cortex along the axis of the pedicle. All the linear measurements like Vertical interpedicular distance [VIPD], Transverse interpedicular distance   [TIPD], Sagital angle [SA] measured  using digital vernier calipers with resolution [0.01mm].

Result: In pedicle width however there was no significance difference [p > 0.05] between direct measurement and CT measurement in T1, T2 and T10 and other vertebral level there was significance difference [p < 0.05] between DM and CT. Pedicle Hight of the thoracic spine showed no significant difference [p > 0.05] between the direct measurement and the CT measurement in T3 and T8, but in other vertebral level there is significant difference [p < 0.05] between direct measurement and CT. A significant difference [p < 0.05] between direct measurement and CT measurement sagital angle values in all the vertebral levels was observed.

Conclusion: Pedicle morphometry shows significant correlations in different parameters in most of the vertebral levels in direct measurement and in CT measurements. Also the multiple linear regressions was performed to obtain prediction equation taking direct measurement as dependant variable and CT scan measurements, age and gender as independent variables. The results of the present study can help in designing implants and instrumentations, understanding spine pathologies; and management of spinal disorder in this ethnic group.

Key words: Pedicle, Morphometry, Thoracic Vertebrae.

REFERENCES

    1. Husted DS, Haims AH, Fairchild TA, Kershaw TS, Yue JJ. Morphometric comparison of the pedicle rib unit to pedicles in the thoracic spine. Spine 2004;29:139–146.
    1. Issa Al-Shakhrah, Tariq Al-Obaidi Common artifacts in computerized tomography: A review Applied radiology August 2003;32(8):12-17.
    1. Kadoury S, Cheriet F, Dansereau J, Labelle H Threedimensional reconstruction of the scoliotic spine and pelvis from uncalibrated biplanar X-ray images. Spinal Disorders Techniques 2007; 20:160–168.
    1. Nojiri K, Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Toyama Y. Morphometric analysis of the thoracic and lumbar spine in Japanese on the use of pedicle screws. Surg Radiol Anat 2005; 27:123-8.
    1. Cinotti G, Gumina S, Ripani M, et al. Pedicle instrumentation in the thoracic spine. A morphometric and cadaveric study for placement of screws. 1999;24:114–119.
    1. Liau KM, Yusof MI, Abdullah MS, Abdullah S, Yusof AH. Computed tomographic morphometry of thoracic pedicles: safety margin of transpedicular screw fixation in Malaysian Spine 2006; 31:545–550.
    1. Ebraheim NA, Xu R, Ahmad M, Yeasting RA. Projection of the thoracic pedicle and its morphometry analysis. Spine 1997; 22:233–238.
    1. Lavaste F, Skalli W, Robin S. Three-dimensional geometrical and mechanical modelling of the lumbar spine. J Biomech 1992; 25, 1153–1164.
    1. Mc Lain RF, Ferrara L, Kabins M. Pedicle morphometry in the upper thoracic spine: limits to safe screw placement in older patients. Spine 2002; 27: 2467–2471.
    1. Berry JL, Moran JM, Berg WS, Steffee AD. A morphometry study of human lumbar and selected thoracic vertebrae.Spine 1987; 12: 362–367.
    1. Liljenqvist UR, Link TM, Halm HF Morphometric analysis of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2000;25(10): 1247- 1253.
    1. Christodoulou AG, Apostolou T, Ploumis A, Terzidis I, Hantzokos I, Pournaras J. Pedicle dimensions of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae in the Greek population. Clin Anat. 2005;18:404–408.
    1. Scoles PV, Linton AE, Latimer B, Levy ME, Digiovanni BF. Vertebral body and posterior element morphology: the normal spine in middle life. Spine 1988;13:1082–1086.
    1. Panjabi MM, Takata K, Goel V, Fed erico D, Oxland T, Duranceau. Thoracic human vertebrae: quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine 1991; 16:888–901.
    1. Mc Cormack BM, Benzel EC, Adams MS, Baldwin NG, Rupp FW, Maher DJ. Anatomy of the thoracic pedicle. Neurosurgery. 1995; 37:303–308.
    1. Datir SP, Mitra SR. Morphometric study of the thoracic vertebral pedicle in an Indian population. Spine 2004; 29:1174–1181.
    1. Chadha M, Balain B, Maini L, Dhaon BK. Pedicle morphology of the lower thoracic, lumbar, and S1 vertebrae: an Indian perspective. Spine 2003; 28:744–749.
    1. Acharya S, Dorje T, Srivastava A. Lower dorsal and lumbar pedicle morphometry in Indian population: a study of four hundred fifty vertebrae. Spine 2010; 35:378–384.
    1. Vaccaro AR, Rizzolo SJ, Allardyce TJ, Ramsey M, Salvo J, Balderston Ra, Cotler JM. Placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. Part I: morphometry analysis of the thoracic vertebrae. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995; 77:1193–1199.
    1. Ugur HC, Attar A, Uz A, Tekdemir I, Egemen N, Genç Y. Thoracic pedicle: surgical anatomic evaluation and relations. J Spinal Disord. 2001; 14:39–45.
    1. Tan SH, Teo EC, Chua HC. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese Singaporeans. Eur Spine J.2004; 13:137–146.
    1. Liau KM, Yusof MI, Abdullah MS, Abdullah S, Yusof AH. Computed tomographic morphometry of thoracic pedicles: safety margin of transpedicular screw fixation in Malaysian Spine 2006; 31:545–550.
    1. Lien SB, Liou NH, Wu SS. Analysis of anatomic morphometry of the pedicles and the safe zone for through pedicle procedures in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2007; 16: 1215-1222.
    1. Husted DS, Haims AH, Fairchild TA, Kershaw TS, Yue JJ. Morphometric comparison of the pedicle rib unit to pedicles in the thoracic spine. Spine 2004; 29:139–146.
    1. Kim JH, Choi GM, Chang IB, Ahn SK, Song JH, Choi HC. Pedicular and extrapedicular morphometry analysis in the Korean population. J Korean Neurosurg Soc.2009; 46:181–188.
    1. Marketos SG, Skiadas P. Hippocrates. The father of spine surgery. Spine 1976; 24(13):1381–1387.
    1. Husted DS, Haims AH, Fairchild TA, Kershaw TS, Yue JJ. Morphometric comparison of the pedicle rib unit to pedicles in the thoracic spine. Spine 2004; 29:139–146.
    1. Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Doornik A, Widell EH, Knight GW, Patwardhan AG, Thomas JC, Rothman SL, Fields BT. Analysis of the morphometry characteristics of the thoracic and lumbar pedicles. Spine 1987;12:160–166.
    1. Chaynes P, Sol JC, Vaysse P, Becue J, Lagarrigue J. Vertebral pedicle anatomy in relation to pedicle screw fixation: a cadaver study. Surg Radiol Anat. 2001; 23:85–90.
  1. Hou S, Hu R, Shi Y. Pedicle morphology of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine in a Chinese population. Spine 1993; 18:1850–1855.

Cite this article: Ashwini Shetty, R.Avadhani, Mahesha K.B, Yashodhar Bhandary. THORACIC PEDICLE MORPHOMETRY STUDY ON CADAVER AND CT SCAN WITH ITS CLINICAL APPLICATIONS. Int J Anat Res 2019;7(1.1):6089-6101. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2018.414