Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 12/2018

01-12-2018 | Original Article

Dimensions of the spinous process and interspinous space: a morphometric study

Authors: Guang-Xun Lin, Tsz-King Suen, Javier Quillo-Olvera, Kutbuddin Akbary, Jung-Woo Hur, Eun Kim, Eun-Jin Park, Jin-Sung Kim

Published in: Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy | Issue 12/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To measure the morphological dimensions of the spinous process (SP) and interspinous space, and provide a basis for the development of interspinous devices for the Korean or East Asian populations.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the anatomical parameters of 120 patients. The parameters included height, length, and width of SP, interspinous distance (supine, standing, and dynamic), cortical thickness of SP, and spino-laminar (S-L) angle. Correlations between measurements, age, and gender were investigated.

Results

The largest height, length, and cortical thickness and S-L angle were noted at L3. The largest width was observed at S1. The interspinous distance decreased significantly from L2–3 to L5–S1 and was significantly larger in the supine than in standing posture for L5–S1. Cortical thickness was gradually tapered from the anterior to the posterior position. The S-L angle at L2 and L3 was similar and significantly decreased from L3 to S1. An increased trend in width with aging and a decreased trend in distance (supine) were noted. A significant increase in height, length, and distance in males compared with females was also observed.

Conclusions

The interspinous space is wider at the anterior, and the cortex is thicker anteriorly. Accordingly, it appears that the optimized implant position lies in the interspinous space anteriorly. The varying interspinous space with different postures and gradually narrowing with age suggest the need for caution when sizing the device. Gender differences also need to be considered when designing implantable devices.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Albietz JS, Rosasarellano P, Fleming JC, Gurr KR, Bailey SI, Bailey CS (2012) An anatomic study of the interspinous space of the lumbosacral spine. Eur Spine J 21:145–148CrossRef Albietz JS, Rosasarellano P, Fleming JC, Gurr KR, Bailey SI, Bailey CS (2012) An anatomic study of the interspinous space of the lumbosacral spine. Eur Spine J 21:145–148CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel SH (2006) Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 4:463–471CrossRef Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel SH (2006) Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 4:463–471CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bono CM, Vaccaro AR (2007) Interspinous process devices in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:255–261CrossRef Bono CM, Vaccaro AR (2007) Interspinous process devices in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:255–261CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT, Schmidt MH (2010) Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus 28:E8CrossRef Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT, Schmidt MH (2010) Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus 28:E8CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Chen PG, Daubs MD, Berven S et al (2016) Surgery for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: the development of appropriateness criteria. Spine (Phila Pa) 41:910–918CrossRef Chen PG, Daubs MD, Berven S et al (2016) Surgery for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: the development of appropriateness criteria. Spine (Phila Pa) 41:910–918CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fransen P (2017) Long-term results with percutaneous interspinous process devices in the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication. J Spine Surg 3:620–623CrossRef Fransen P (2017) Long-term results with percutaneous interspinous process devices in the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication. J Spine Surg 3:620–623CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gala RJ, Russo GS, Whang PG (2017) Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10:182–188CrossRef Gala RJ, Russo GS, Whang PG (2017) Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10:182–188CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Neroni M et al (2015) Failure rates and complications of interspinous process decompression devices: a European multicenter study. Neurosurg Focus 39:E14CrossRef Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Neroni M et al (2015) Failure rates and complications of interspinous process decompression devices: a European multicenter study. Neurosurg Focus 39:E14CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Ihm EH, Han IB, Shin DA, Kim TG, Huh R, Chung SS (2013) Spinous process morphometry for interspinous device implantation in Korean patients. World Neurosurg 79:172–176CrossRef Ihm EH, Han IB, Shin DA, Kim TG, Huh R, Chung SS (2013) Spinous process morphometry for interspinous device implantation in Korean patients. World Neurosurg 79:172–176CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kim DH, Albert TJ (2007) Interspinous process spacers. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:200–207CrossRef Kim DH, Albert TJ (2007) Interspinous process spacers. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:200–207CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Kondrashov DG, Hannibal M, Hsu KY, Zucherman JF (2006) Interspinous process decompression with the X-STOP device for lumbar spinal stenosis: a 4-year follow-up study. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:323–327CrossRef Kondrashov DG, Hannibal M, Hsu KY, Zucherman JF (2006) Interspinous process decompression with the X-STOP device for lumbar spinal stenosis: a 4-year follow-up study. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:323–327CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lee HM, Kim NH, Kim HJ, Chung IH (1995) Morphometric study of the lumbar spinal canal in the Korean population. Spine (Phila Pa) 20:1679–1684CrossRef Lee HM, Kim NH, Kim HJ, Chung IH (1995) Morphometric study of the lumbar spinal canal in the Korean population. Spine (Phila Pa) 20:1679–1684CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lurie J, Tomkins-Lane C (2016) Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ 352:h6234CrossRef Lurie J, Tomkins-Lane C (2016) Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ 352:h6234CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Mariottini A, Pieri S, Giachi S et al (2005) Preliminary results of a soft novel lumbar intervertebral prothesis (DIAM) in the degenerative spinal pathology. Acta Neurochir Suppl 92:129–131CrossRef Mariottini A, Pieri S, Giachi S et al (2005) Preliminary results of a soft novel lumbar intervertebral prothesis (DIAM) in the degenerative spinal pathology. Acta Neurochir Suppl 92:129–131CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Miscusi M, Trungu S, Forcato S, Ramieri A, Polli FM, Raco A (2018) 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 79:139–144CrossRef Miscusi M, Trungu S, Forcato S, Ramieri A, Polli FM, Raco A (2018) 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 79:139–144CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Ortega A, Sarmiento JM, Patil C et al (2015) Comparative analysis of inpatient and outpatient interspinous process device placement for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 76:443–450CrossRef Ortega A, Sarmiento JM, Patil C et al (2015) Comparative analysis of inpatient and outpatient interspinous process device placement for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 76:443–450CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Phan K, Rao PJ, Ball JR, Mobbs RJ (2016) Interspinous process spacers versus traditional decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Spine Surg 2:31–40CrossRef Phan K, Rao PJ, Ball JR, Mobbs RJ (2016) Interspinous process spacers versus traditional decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Spine Surg 2:31–40CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Puzzilli F, Gazzeri R, Galarza M et al (2014) Interspinous spacer decompression (X-STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative disk disease: a multicenter study with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 124:166–174CrossRef Puzzilli F, Gazzeri R, Galarza M et al (2014) Interspinous spacer decompression (X-STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative disk disease: a multicenter study with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 124:166–174CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ran B, Li Q, Yu B, Chen X, Guo K (2015) Morphometry of lumbar spinous process via three dimensional CT reconstruction in a Chinese population. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:1129–1136PubMedPubMedCentral Ran B, Li Q, Yu B, Chen X, Guo K (2015) Morphometry of lumbar spinous process via three dimensional CT reconstruction in a Chinese population. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:1129–1136PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP, Beaupré GS, Yerby SA (2005) The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine (Phila Pa) 30:744–749CrossRef Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP, Beaupré GS, Yerby SA (2005) The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine (Phila Pa) 30:744–749CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Ross PD, Wasnich RD, Davis JW, Vogel JM (1991) Vertebral dimension differences between Caucasian populations, and between Caucasians and Japanese. Bone 12:107–112CrossRef Ross PD, Wasnich RD, Davis JW, Vogel JM (1991) Vertebral dimension differences between Caucasian populations, and between Caucasians and Japanese. Bone 12:107–112CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Siewe J, Selbeck M, Koy T et al (2015) Indications and contraindications: interspinous process decompression devices in lumbar spine surgery. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 76:1–7PubMed Siewe J, Selbeck M, Koy T et al (2015) Indications and contraindications: interspinous process decompression devices in lumbar spine surgery. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 76:1–7PubMed
23.
go back to reference Sobottke R, Koy T, Röllinghoff M et al (2010) Computed tomography measurements of the lumbar spinous processes and interspinous space. Surg Radiol Anat 32:731–738CrossRef Sobottke R, Koy T, Röllinghoff M et al (2010) Computed tomography measurements of the lumbar spinous processes and interspinous space. Surg Radiol Anat 32:731–738CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Verhoof OJ, Bron JL, Wapstra FH, van Royen BJ (2008) High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17:188–192CrossRef Verhoof OJ, Bron JL, Wapstra FH, van Royen BJ (2008) High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17:188–192CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD et al (2010) Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa) 35:1329–1338CrossRef Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD et al (2010) Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa) 35:1329–1338CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Wu AM, Zhou Y, Li QL et al (2014) Interspinous spacer versus traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One 9:e97142CrossRef Wu AM, Zhou Y, Li QL et al (2014) Interspinous spacer versus traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One 9:e97142CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Xu C, Ni WF, Tian NF, Hu XQ, Li F, Xu HZ (2013) Complications in degenerative lumbar disease treated with a dynamic interspinous spacer (Coflex). Int Orthop 37:2199–2204CrossRef Xu C, Ni WF, Tian NF, Hu XQ, Li F, Xu HZ (2013) Complications in degenerative lumbar disease treated with a dynamic interspinous spacer (Coflex). Int Orthop 37:2199–2204CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Dimensions of the spinous process and interspinous space: a morphometric study
Authors
Guang-Xun Lin
Tsz-King Suen
Javier Quillo-Olvera
Kutbuddin Akbary
Jung-Woo Hur
Eun Kim
Eun-Jin Park
Jin-Sung Kim
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy / Issue 12/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-1038
Electronic ISSN: 1279-8517
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-018-2096-z

Other articles of this Issue 12/2018

Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 12/2018 Go to the issue