Multimedialna platforma wiedzy medycznej Internetowa Księgarnia Medyczna Kalendarium Konferencji
Folia Morphologica
MENU
Shortcuts Submit an article Author Guidelines (new) Ahead Of Print Reviewers 2023

open access

Vol 80, No 3 (2021)
Original article
Submitted: 2020-04-27
Accepted: 2020-07-22
Published online: 2020-08-24
View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

A morphometric study of the thoracolumbar spine spinous process and lamina space in the Chinese

L. N. Leng12, H. J. Ma34, D. W. Si5
DOI: 10.5603/FM.a2020.0102
·
Pubmed: 32844385
·
Folia Morphol 2021;80(3):665-674.
Affiliations
  1. Graduate School, HeBei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei Province, China
  2. Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China
  3. HeBei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei Province, China
  4. Hebei Key Laboratory of Metabolic Diseases, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China
  5. Department of Anatomy of College of Basic Medical Sciences, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan, Hebei Province, China

open access

Vol 80, No 3 (2021)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Submitted: 2020-04-27
Accepted: 2020-07-22
Published online: 2020-08-24

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to analyse the anatomical parameters of the thoracolumbar spine spinous process and lamina space for Chinese anatomic study, and provide an anatomical reference for its clinical operation.
Materials and methods: Samples from 24 adult autopsy subjects were obtained from the thoracolumbar spine spinous process and lamina space at levels T1 through L5. Direct measurements were made for the spinous process spacing distance, spinous process length, width, thickness and inclination angle, and the lamina space width and height.
Results: 1. Distance of the spine spinous process spacing: Thoracic part: The maximum tip distance was observed at T4~T5 level, and the minimum tip distance was observed at T9~T10 level. The maximum centre distance and root distance were observed at T11~T12 level, and the minimum were observed at T5~T6 level separately. Lumbar part: distance of spinous process spacing in lumbar part showed a decreasing pattern from L1~L2 to L5~S1. 2. Length, width, thickness of the spine spinous process: 1) The length of the spinous process: The upper border gradually increased from T1 to T6 and then decreased till T12 region. The centre region is T8 maximum, T11 minimum. The lower border length showed a decreasing trend from T1 to T12. Lumbar part: The length increased from L1 and reached maximum value at L3. Then, the length decreased gradually to reach minimum value at L5. 2) The width of the spinous process: The width showed an increasing trend from T1 to T12. Lumbar part: Maximum width was seen at L3 and a minimum L5. 3) The thickness of the spinous process: Tip thickness > Centre thickness > Root thickness in each thoracic and lumbar vertebra. Thoracic part: the maximum tip thickness is T1, T7 minimum, The maximum centre thickness is T12, T7 minimum. The maximum root height is T6, T9 minimum. Lumbar part: Maximum tip thickness was seen at L1, and a minimum L3. Maximum centre thickness was seen at L5, and a minimum L2. Maximum root thickness was seen at L2, and a minimum L1. 3. Inclination angle of the spine spinous process: The inclination angle gradually decreased from T1 to T7 to minimum value at T7 and then increased till T12 region. 4. Width and height of lamina space: 1) The width of lamina space: For thoracic part, the data became shorter gradually from T1~T2 to T5~T6, and then increased till to T11~T12. For lumbar part, the width of lamina space increased from T12~L1 to L5~S1. 2) The height of lamina space: In the thoracic vertebrae, the maximum height of centre region was observed at T11~T12 and the minimum mean value was observed at T3~T4. In the lumbar vertebrae, the height of the lamina space was gradually increased from T12~L1 to L5~S1.
Conclusions: This study reports morphometric data of the thoracolumbar spine spinous process and lamina space in the Chinese population, which provides an anatomic basis for thoracolumbar spine design of internal fixation, posterior surgery, puncture and epidural anaesthesia.

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to analyse the anatomical parameters of the thoracolumbar spine spinous process and lamina space for Chinese anatomic study, and provide an anatomical reference for its clinical operation.
Materials and methods: Samples from 24 adult autopsy subjects were obtained from the thoracolumbar spine spinous process and lamina space at levels T1 through L5. Direct measurements were made for the spinous process spacing distance, spinous process length, width, thickness and inclination angle, and the lamina space width and height.
Results: 1. Distance of the spine spinous process spacing: Thoracic part: The maximum tip distance was observed at T4~T5 level, and the minimum tip distance was observed at T9~T10 level. The maximum centre distance and root distance were observed at T11~T12 level, and the minimum were observed at T5~T6 level separately. Lumbar part: distance of spinous process spacing in lumbar part showed a decreasing pattern from L1~L2 to L5~S1. 2. Length, width, thickness of the spine spinous process: 1) The length of the spinous process: The upper border gradually increased from T1 to T6 and then decreased till T12 region. The centre region is T8 maximum, T11 minimum. The lower border length showed a decreasing trend from T1 to T12. Lumbar part: The length increased from L1 and reached maximum value at L3. Then, the length decreased gradually to reach minimum value at L5. 2) The width of the spinous process: The width showed an increasing trend from T1 to T12. Lumbar part: Maximum width was seen at L3 and a minimum L5. 3) The thickness of the spinous process: Tip thickness > Centre thickness > Root thickness in each thoracic and lumbar vertebra. Thoracic part: the maximum tip thickness is T1, T7 minimum, The maximum centre thickness is T12, T7 minimum. The maximum root height is T6, T9 minimum. Lumbar part: Maximum tip thickness was seen at L1, and a minimum L3. Maximum centre thickness was seen at L5, and a minimum L2. Maximum root thickness was seen at L2, and a minimum L1. 3. Inclination angle of the spine spinous process: The inclination angle gradually decreased from T1 to T7 to minimum value at T7 and then increased till T12 region. 4. Width and height of lamina space: 1) The width of lamina space: For thoracic part, the data became shorter gradually from T1~T2 to T5~T6, and then increased till to T11~T12. For lumbar part, the width of lamina space increased from T12~L1 to L5~S1. 2) The height of lamina space: In the thoracic vertebrae, the maximum height of centre region was observed at T11~T12 and the minimum mean value was observed at T3~T4. In the lumbar vertebrae, the height of the lamina space was gradually increased from T12~L1 to L5~S1.
Conclusions: This study reports morphometric data of the thoracolumbar spine spinous process and lamina space in the Chinese population, which provides an anatomic basis for thoracolumbar spine design of internal fixation, posterior surgery, puncture and epidural anaesthesia.

Full Text:

View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

Keywords

thoracolumbar spinous process, lamina space, anatomy, morphology

About this article
Title

A morphometric study of the thoracolumbar spine spinous process and lamina space in the Chinese

Journal

Folia Morphologica

Issue

Vol 80, No 3 (2021)

Article type

Original article

Pages

665-674

Published online

2020-08-24

Page views

7009

Article views/downloads

1558

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2020.0102

Pubmed

32844385

Bibliographic record

Folia Morphol 2021;80(3):665-674.

Keywords

thoracolumbar spinous process
lamina space
anatomy
morphology

Authors

L. N. Leng
H. J. Ma
D. W. Si

References (39)
  1. Ahn Y, Lee SH, Park WM, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and prognostic factors of 43 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(16): E326–E332.
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. Bono CM, Vaccaro AR. Lamina space process devices in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007; 20: 255–261.
  3. Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT, et al. Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28(6): E8.
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. Cai B, Ran B, Li Q, et al. A morphometric study of the lumbar spinous process in the Chinese population. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2015; 48(1): 91–95.
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. Castilleja A, Broomall PA. Pedicle screws vs minimally invasive posterior-lumbar-interbody-fusion with spinous process fixation in the workers compensation population: early outcomes with minimum one year follow up. Orthopaedic Surg. 2014: E123–E124.
  6. Chen PGC, Daubs MD, Berven S, et al. Surgery for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: the development of appropriateness criteria. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41(10): 910–918.
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. Chiu JC. lamina space process decompression (IPD) system (X-STOP) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Surg Technol Int. 2006; 15: 265–275.
  8. Dommisse GF. The blood supply of the spinal cord. J Bone Joint Surg. 1974; 56-B(2): 225–235.
    CrossRef
  9. Drake RL. ed. In: Textbook of Gray's Anatomy for Students 1st ed. Churchill Livingstone Publications, Philadelphia 2005: 33–63.
  10. Ferre RM, Sweeney TW. Emergency physicians can easily obtain ultrasound images of anatomical landmarks relevant to lumbar puncture. Am J Emerg Med. 2007; 25(3): 291–296.
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Alfieri A. Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014: 975052.
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. Hu MW, Liu ZL, Zhou Y, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using spinous process and laminae. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(3): 373–377.
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. Husted DS, Haims AH, Fairchild TA, et al. Morphometric comparison of the pedicle rib unit to pedicles in the thoracic spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(2): 139–146.
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. Ihm EH, Han InBo, Shin DAh, et al. Spinous process morphometry for interspinous device implantation in Korean patients. World Neurosurg. 2013; 79(1): 172–176.
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. Kaur K, Singh R, Prasath V, et al. Computed tomographic-based morphometric study of thoracic spine and its relevance to anaesthetic and spinal surgical procedures. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2016; 7(2): 101–108.
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. Kim D, Albert T. Interspinous process spacers. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007; 15(4): 200–207.
    CrossRef
  17. Kim HoJ, Bak KH, Chun HJ, et al. Posterior interspinous fusion device for one-level fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disease : comparison with pedicle screw fixation - preliminary report of at least one year follow up. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012; 52(4): 359–364.
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. Leahy JC, Mathias KJ, Hukins DW, et al. Design of spinous process hooks for flexible fixation of the lumbar spine. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2000; 214(5): 479–487.
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. Lee HM, Kim NH, Kim HJ, et al. Morphometric study of the lumbar spinal canal in the Korean population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20(15): 1679–1684.
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. Lee SH, Kang HS. Percutaneous endoscopic laser annuloplasty for discogenic low back pain. World Neurosurg. 2010; 73(3): 198–206; discussion e33.
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. Lee SE, Jahng TA, Kim HJ. Different surgical approaches for spinal schwannoma: a single surgeon's experience with 49 consecutive cases. World Neurosurg. 2015; 84(6): 1894–1902.
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. Lühmann D, Burkhardt-Hammer T, Borowski C, et al. Minimally invasive surgical procedures for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2005; 1: Doc07.
    PubMed
  23. Mariottini A, Pieri S, Giachi S, et al. Preliminary results of a soft novel lumbar intervertebral prothesis (DIAM) in the degenerative spinal pathology. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2005; 92: 129–131.
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. Miscusi M, Trungu S, Forcato S, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes and quality of life in elderly patients treated with interspinous devices for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2018; 79(2): 139–144.
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. Onen MR, Simsek M, Naderi S. Alternatives to surgical approach for giant spinal schwannomas. Neurosciences (Riyadh). 2016; 21(1): 30–36.
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. Panjabi MM, O'Holleran JD, Crisco JJ, et al. Complexity of the thoracic spine pedicle anatomy. Eur Spine J. 1997; 6(1): 19–24.
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. Ran Bo, Li Q, Yu B, et al. Morphometry of lumbar spinous process via three dimensional CT reconstruction in a Chinese population. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8(1): 1129–1136.
    PubMed
  28. Richardson J, Groen G. Applied epidural anatomy. Continuing Education Anaesthesia Critical Care Pain. 2005; 5(3): 98–100.
    CrossRef
  29. Romanes GJ. ed. 15th ed. Cunninghams Manual of Practical Anatomy. vol. II. Oxford University Press, New York 1996: 3–82.
  30. Sénégas J. Mechanical supplementation by non-rigid fixation in degenerative intervertebral lumbar segments: the Wallis system. Eur Spine J. 2002; 11 Suppl 2: S164–S169.
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. Shaw JD, Shaw DL, Cooperman DR, et al. Characterization of lumbar spinous process morphology: a cadaveric study of 2,955 human lumbar vertebrae. Spine J. 2015; 15(7): 1645–1652.
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. Shim C, Park S, Lee SH, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of an interspinous stabilizing device, locker. Spine. 2008; 33(22): E820–E827.
    CrossRef
  33. Singh R, Srivastva SK, Prasath CS, et al. Morphometric measurements of cadaveric thoracic spine in Indian population and its clinical applications. Asian Spine J. 2011; 5(1): 20–34.
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee SM, et al. Thoracic pedicle screw fixation in spinal deformities: are they really safe? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(18): 2049–2057.
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. Ugur HC, Attar A, Uz A, et al. Thoracic pedicle: surgical anatomic evaluation and relations. J Spinal Disord. 2001; 14(1): 39–45.
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(14): 1329–1338.
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. Yano S, Hida K, Seki T, et al. A new ceramic interspinous process spacer for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Operative Neurosurgery. 2008; 63(suppl_1): ONS108–ONS114.
    CrossRef
  38. Zindrick MR, Knight GW, Sartori MJ, et al. Pedicle morphology of the immature thoracolumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(21): 2726–2735.
    CrossRefPubMed
  39. Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA, et al. A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results. Eur Spine J. 2004; 13(1): 22–31.
    CrossRefPubMed

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., Grupa Via Medica, Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.: +48 58 320 94 94, faks: +48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl