title: Anatomic basis of anterior and posterior instrumentation of the spine: morphometric study.
abstract: METHODS
  A morphometric study of the linear and angular parameters of the spinal vertebra was conducted by computerized tomographic scans and comparison with previous studies in literature.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  Detailed knowledge of the spinal vertebral morphometry is important for proper instrumentation. The morphologic measurements vary among races. Morphometric studies have been conducted in white populations. This study aims to suggest dimensions for anterior and posterior spinal implants and to improve the instrumentation techniques.
  
  
  METHODS
  The vertebral pedicles, bodies and intervertebral disc spaces of the subaxial cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine were studied in 48 healthy individuals by computerized tomographic scan methods. The following parameters were studied: pedicle length, pedicle width, transverse pedicle angle (TPA), sagittal pedicle angle, anterior corpus height, posterior corpus height, anterior disc height, middle disc height and posterior disc height.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Our results were slightly different compared to previous studies. Individual differences were found in the same subgroups. The transverse pedicle diameter was largest at L5 (14.95 mm) and smallest at C3 (5.1 mm). The pedicle was longest at L5 (19.9 mm) and shortest at T10 (15.7).The TPA was largest at C3 (47.6 degrees ) and smallest at T6 (11.3 degrees ). The vertebral body was largest at L5 (34.9 mm) and smallest at C3 and C5 (15.6 mm). The vertebral body width was largest at L5 (46.6 mm) and smallest at C4 (22 mm). The intervertebral disc space height was largest at L2-3 (10 mm) and smallest at T1-2 (2.85 mm). There were no significant differences between the left and right sides.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In our morphometric study of the spinal vertebrae, we found differences compared to a number of previous morphometric studies performed mainly on a white population. Also, we documented the individual morphometric differences of the same parameters in the same subgroups. These results emphasize the importance of preoperative computed tomography and conventional radiography of each patient in planning a surgical procedure and selecting the appropriate size of the instruments, thus avoiding possible postoperative complication related to implants.
authors.affiliation: Department of Neurosurgery, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, K.M. Pasa, Istanbul, Turkey. sylvius@live.com
authors.forename: Bashar
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Abuzayed
authors.forename: Banu
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Tutunculer
authors.forename: Baris
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Kucukyuruk
authors.forename: Saffet
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Tuzgen
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000886:Anthropometry; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012016:Reference Values; D013131:Spine / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Neurosurgery. 2000 Nov;47(5):1162-8; discussion 1168-9
references.pmid: 11063110
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Aug;16(8):861-9
references.pmid: 1948369
references.citation: Neurosurgery. 1996 Jun;38(6):1139-44
references.pmid: 8727144
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 1999 Jan;90(1 Suppl):19-26
references.pmid: 10413121
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Jan 15;29(2):139-46
references.pmid: 14722404
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 1984 Jan;60(1):88-93
references.pmid: 6689732
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Jun 1;21(11):1296-300
references.pmid: 8725919
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990 Jan;15(1):11-4
references.pmid: 2326693
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Nov;14(11):1249-55
references.pmid: 2603059
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Feb;(203):7-17
references.pmid: 3955999
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Feb;(203):18-33
references.pmid: 3955980
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987 Mar;12(2):160-6
references.pmid: 3589807
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988 Sep;13(9):1012-8
references.pmid: 3206294
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Apr;72(4):541-9
references.pmid: 2139030
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2007 Aug;16(8):1215-22
references.pmid: 17180401
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2007 Jan;16(1):47-56
references.pmid: 16628443
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Feb;(203):75-98
references.pmid: 3956000
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Nov 1;23(21):2299-302
references.pmid: 9820910
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Mar 1;22(5):493-500
references.pmid: 9076880
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Aug;16(8):888-901
references.pmid: 1948374
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Feb 1;22(3):233-8
references.pmid: 9051883
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988 Jan;13(1):27-32
references.pmid: 3381134
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Mar;17(3):299-306
references.pmid: 1566168
references.citation: J Spinal Disord. 1994 Feb;7(1):19-28
references.pmid: 8186585
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jul 1;25(13):1655-67
references.pmid: 10870141
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Jan 1;22(1):1-6
references.pmid: 9122772
references.citation: Surg Radiol Anat. 1999;21(4):235-9
references.pmid: 10549078
references.citation: J Spinal Disord. 1994 Jun;7(3):222-9
references.pmid: 7919645