Abstract
Objectives:
To investigated the rate of occurrence of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV), spinal variant, in kidney urinary bladder (KUB) plain radiographs in a Saudi population.
Methods:
Between January 2012 to January 2015, KUB plain films obtained from patients at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, were reviewed, and the presence or absence of LSTV was documented and classified as incomplete or complete. Patients who had evidence of spinal surgery that would obscure the view were excluded.
Results:
A total of 2078 patients underwent KUB examinations during the study period; LSTV anomalies were detected in 158 of these. Sacralization was present in 153 (96.8%) of this cohort, while lumbarization was present in 5 (3.2%). A total of 136 (86.1%) of the sacralized segments were of the incomplete type, whereas 17 (10.7%) were complete. Of the lumbarized vertebrae, 3 (1.8%) were incomplete, and 2 (1.2%) were complete. The most frequent type in men was type Ib (28.5%) for sacralized segments, and type IIb for lumbarized segments (0.6%). In women, type Ia was the most common form of sacralized segments (11.3%) and type IIb was the most common form of lumbarized segments (2.8%).
Conclusion:
The prevalence of LSTV in Saudi patients is 7.6%, with a higher incidence of sacralization than lumbarization. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up time are needed to demonstrate the clinical significance thereof.
Normal anatomical variants occur at the L5-S1 vertebral level, commonly termed lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV); LSTV include both lumbarization of the highest sacral segment and sacralization of the inferior lumbar segment.1 Lumbarization of the S1 vertebrae presents as an anomalous articulation, with well-formed lumbar type facet joints, and a well-defined, full-sized disk; while sacralization of the L5 vertebra is characterized by broadened, elongated transverse processes that are fused to the sacrum.1
Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae were first observed by Bertolotti,2 who classified spinal anomalies depending on the type of articulation between the transverse processes and the sacrum. In 1984, Castellvi et al3 classified the radiographic appearance of LSTV into 4 types, depending on the morphological characteristics. Type I includes unilateral (Ia) or bilateral (Ib) dysplastic transverse processes, with a measured width of at least 19 mm (craniocaudal dimension). Type II includes incomplete unilateral (IIa) or bilateral (IIb) lumbarization/sacralization with an enlarged transverse process, which has a diarthrodial joint between itself and the sacrum. Type III involves unilateral (IIIa) or bilateral (IIIb) lumbarization/sacralization with complete osseous fusion of the transverse process(es) to the sacrum. Type IV includes a unilateral type II transition, with a type III on the opposite side.3 The prevalence of LSTV in the general population varies greatly. It ranges from 4% to 35.9%, depending on the definition, diagnostic modalities, observer error, sample size, and the population studied.4-19
Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae variants are best identified on Ferguson radiographs (antero-posterior radiographs, angled cranially at 30°).4,20,21 Other radiographic or CT examinations are more reliable in detecting LSTV than MRI.4,20,21
The association of LSTV with low back pain is controversial.2 Some studies8,22,23 have reported a strong association between LSTV and the incidence of low back pain, while others7,15,18,24-26 considered that LSTV abnormalities are a common finding in the general population and have no relationship to the higher incidence of low back pain. Spine surgeons must be aware of LSTV anomalies, particularly when they operate at L5−S1 vertebral levels, in order to avoid any surgical or procedural errors in terms of vertebral numbering, which might affect the surgical outcome.4,7,21,27,28 The occurrence rate of LSTV in Saudi Arabia is unknown. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study to estimate the prevalence of LSTV among a sample of Saudi patients.
Methods
Search strategy
PubMed and Google Scholar were searched using the following keywords: lumbosacral transitional vertebrae; LSTV; sacralization; lumbarization; kidney urinary bladder x-ray films; KUB; Saudi Arabia; and KSA in different combinations was performed to identify previously published studies. The papers identified were reviewed by the authors and the design of the current study was developed to estimate the prevalence of LSTV among Saudi Population.
Data extraction
The study followed the principles of the Helsinki Declaration, institutional approval was obtained from the Research and Ethics Committee of King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The need for patient consent was waived, and a retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted between January 2012 and January 2015, at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. All KUB x-ray films taken during that period were included in the study and a thorough assessment of the films was made by expert radiologists in order to identify abnormal LSTV variants. Patients who demonstrated evidence of spine surgery that would obscure the identification of LSTV were excluded from the study. Demographic data were collected. Identification of LSTV anomalies was dependent upon Castellvi’s classification. Complete and incomplete forms of LSTV were identified as follows: unilateral and bilateral types I and II were labeled as incomplete, whereas unilateral and bilateral type III and IV were labeled as complete.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). Frequency tables were developed and categorical data were analyzed using Chi-square testing with a p<0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results
The review of KUB films obtained from 2078 patients revealed LSTV anomalies in 158 patients. Of these, 113 (71.6%) were men, and 45 (28.4%) were women. The age ranged from 2 to 80 years, with a mean ± SD of 46.8 ±14.6 years. The prevalence of LSTV in this sample size was 7.6%. Sacralization was present in 153 (96.8%) patients, while lumbarization was present in 5 (3.2%). Among the sacralized segments, 136 (86.3%) were of the incomplete type, whereas 17 (10.7%) were complete. Of the lumbarized vertebrae, 3 (1.8%) were incomplete, and 2 (1.2%) were complete. Table 1 showed the various types of transitional vertebrae, including sacralized and lumbarized vertebrae.
Table 1.
Frequency of various type of sacralization and lumbarization.
Stratifying frequencies for both genders revealed that, in men, the most frequent types were Ib (28.5%) for sacralized segments, and IIb for lumbarized segments (0.6%). Sacralization was present in 81% of men and lumbarization in 0.2%. Complete forms comprised 5%, and incomplete forms 64.2%. All lumbarizations were incomplete in men. In women, 18% of LSTV were sacralized, and 0.8% lumbarized. Type Ia was the most frequent form of sacralized segments (11.3%) and type IIb of lumbarized segments (2.8%). Complete transitional sacralized vertebrae accounted for 11.3%, while incomplete forms accounted for 29.6%. An equal percentage of complete and incomplete lumbarized segments (2.8%) were seen.
Based on the Chi-square test, age was not statistically significantly different between transitional vertebrae groups (p=0.319). However, a statistically significant association was found between gender and sacralization, which was more common in men than in women (p<0.001), while the association with lumbarization was insignificant (p=0.23).
Discussion
The prevalence of LSTV in this study falls in the range of previously published studies (4% to 35.9%).4-19 The wide variability in the prevalence and incidence of LSTV cited in the literatures is mainly related to many contributing factors: differences in populations, sample size and selection criteria (symptomatic or asymptomatic), vertebral numbering technique, observer error, and imaging modality.4-19
When we compared the transitional states of LSTV, we found that sacralization of the fifth lumbar vertebrae is more common than lumbarization of the first sacral segment. Previously published studies10,13,19,29-34 have reported a prevalence of sacralized L5 of 1.7% to 14%, and that of lumbarized S1 of 3% to 7%, which is similar to our findings, although the prevalence of sacralization was lower in our study. The vertebral numbering technique and other factors might contribute to this finding. The use of KUB films to identify LSTV anomalies might have contributed to a higher prevalence among men, as renal stones are historically 2-4 times more common among men than among women.35,36 Other unknown factors may have contributed to this finding and further studies are needed to clarify such associations. Many studies have reported a higher prevalence of lumbarization than of sacralization,19,30,34 but the cause of this difference has not been reported. Further studies are required to clarify the present situation. When we classified LSTV into complete and incomplete groups, only 7.6% of our sample films were considered to be the complete type, and this is similar to the findings documented in previously published studies in Asian and Australian populations.1,6 Types I and II were the most prevalent types in our study, which is similar to the findings in the study by Castellvi et al3 and Apazidis groups,7 although they considered them to be of no clinical significance.
In terms of the relationship between gender and LSTV anomalies, Nardo et al, as well as other investigators,6,34,37,38 reported a similar finding, where the prevalence of sacralization was more common in men than in women, while lumbarization of S1 was more common in women than in men.
Study limitation
On of the limitation of this study is the retrospective nature of the study. A second limitation is the use of more than one observer to identify LSTV, which might lead to observer error. Further prospective studies, where a single observer assesses the imaging, and the use of other image techniques, are needed in future.
Despite the available reports, there are debates about the clinical significance of LSTV and its association with low back pain, as well as the contribution to surgical error in the identification of vertebral level,7 and future studies should concentrate on finding answers to such questions.
In conclusion, our study adds to the literature about the prevalence of LSTV in the Saudi population, and emphasizes a higher prevalence of sacralization among men than among women.
Footnotes
References
- 1.French HD, Somasundaram AJ, Schaefer NR, Laherty RW. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and its prevalence in the Australian population. Global Spine J. 2014;4:229–32. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1387808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bertolotti M. Contribution to the knowledge of the vices of regional differentiation of the spine with special regard to the sacral assimilation of lumbar vertebrae. Medical Radiology. 1917;4:113–144. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Castellvi AE, Goldstein LA, Chan DP. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and their relationship with lumbar extradural defects. Spine. 1984;9:493–495. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198407000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Konin GP, Walz DM. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae: classification, imaging findings, and clinical relevance. Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:1778–1786. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Paik NC, Lim CS, Jang HS. Numeric and morphological verification of lumbosacral segments in 8280 consecutive patients. Spine. 2013;38:E573–E578. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828b7195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Sekharappa V, Amritanand R, Krishnan V, David KS. Lumbosacral transition vertebra: prevalence and its significance. Asian Spine J. 2014;8:51–58. doi: 10.4184/asj.2014.8.1.51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Apazidis A, Ricart PA, Diefenbach CM, Spivak JM. The prevalence of transitional vertebrae in the lumbar spine. Spine J. 2011;11:858–862. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tang M, Yang XF, Yang SW, Han P, Ma YM, Yu H, et al. Lumbosacral transitional vertebra in a population-based study of 5860 individuals: prevalence and relationship to low back pain. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1679–1682. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lee CH, Park CM, Kim KA, Hong SJ, Seol HY, Kim BH, et al. Identification and prediction of transitional vertebrae on imaging studies: anatomical significance of paraspinal structures. Clin Anat. 2007;20:905–914. doi: 10.1002/ca.20540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bron JL, van Royen BJ, Wuisman PI. The clinical significance of lumbosacral transitional anomalies. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007;73:687–695. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Delport EG, Cucuzzella TR, Kim N, Marley J, Pruitt C, Delport AG. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae: incidence in a consecutive patient series. Pain Physician. 2006;9:53–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Vergauwen S, Parizel PM, van Breusegem L, Van Goethem JW, Nackaerts Y, Van den Hauwe L, et al. Distribution and incidence of degenerative spine changes in patients with a lumbo-sacral transitional vertebra. Eur Spine J. 1997;6:168–172. doi: 10.1007/BF01301431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hahn PY, Strobel JJ, Hahn FJ. Verification of lumbosacral segments on MR images: identification of transitional vertebrae. Radiology. 1992;182:580–581. doi: 10.1148/radiology.182.2.1732988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Quinlan JF, Duke D, Eustace S. Bertolotti’s syndrome. A cause of back pain in young people. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1183–1186. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B9.17211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Peterson CK, Bolton J, Hsu W, Wood A. A cross-sectional study comparing pain and disability levels in patients with low back pain with and without transitional lumbosacral vertebrae. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005;28:570–574. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Elster AD. Bertolotti’s syndrome revisited. Transitional vertebrae of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1989;14:1373–1377. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Taskaynatan MA, Izci Y, Ozgul A, Hazneci B, Dursun H, Kalyon TA. Clinical significance of congenital lumbosacral malformations in young male population with prolonged low back pain. Spine. 2005;30:E210–E213. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000158950.84470.2a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Luoma K, Vehmas T, Raininko R, Luukkonen R, Riihimäki H. Lumbosacral transitional vertebra: relation to disc degeneration and low back pain. Spine. 2004;29:200–205. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000107223.02346.A8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Leboeuf C, Kimber D, White K. Prevalence of spondylolisthesis, transitional anomalies and low intercrestal line in a chiropractic patient population. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1989;12:200–204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Tureli D, Ekinci G, Baltacioglu F. Is any landmark reliable in vertebral enumeration? A study of 3.0-Tesla lumbar MRI comparing skeletal, neural, and vascular markers. Clin Imaging. 2014;38:792–726. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.O’Driscoll CM, Irwin A, Saifuddin A. Variations in morphology of the lumbosacral junction on sagittal MRI: correlation with plain radiography. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25:225–230. doi: 10.1007/s002560050069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Nardo L, Alizai H, Virayavanich W, Liu F, Hernandez A, Lynch JA, et al. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae: association with low back pain. Radiology. 2012;265:497–503. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12112747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Dai L. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and low back pain. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1999;58:191–193. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Tini PG, Wieser C, Zinn WM. The transitional vertebra of the lumbosacral spine: its radiological classification, incidence, prevalence, and clinical significance. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1977;16:180–185. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/16.3.180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Otani K, Konno S, Kikuchi S. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and nerve-root symptoms. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:1137–1140. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.83b8.11736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Seçer M, Muradov JM, Dalgiç A. Evaluation of congenital lumbosacral malformations and neurological findings in patients with low back pain. Turk Neurosurg. 2009;19:145–148. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Wigh RE, Anthony HF., Jr Transitional lumbosacral discs. probability of herniation. Spine. 1981;6:168–171. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198103000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Malanga GA, Cooke PM. Segmental anomaly leading to wrong level disc surgery in cauda equina syndrome. Pain Physician. 2004;7:107–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hughes RJ, Saifuddin A. Numbering of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae on MRI: role of the iliolumbar ligaments. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:W59–W65. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Steinberg EL, Luger E, Arbel R, Menachem A, Dekel S. A comparative roentgenographic analysis of the lumbar spine in male army recruits with and without lower back pain. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:985–989. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(03)00296-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kim JT, Bahk JH, Sung J. Influence of age and sex on the position of the conus medullaris and Tuffier’s line in adults. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:1359–1363. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200312000-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Chithriki M, Jaibaji M, Steele RD. The anatomical relationship of the aortic bifurcation to the lumbar vertebrae: a MRI study. Surg Radiol Anat. 2002;24:308–312. doi: 10.1007/s00276-002-0036-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Santiago FR, Milena GL, Herrera RO, Romero PA, Plazas PG. Morphometry of the lower lumbar vertebrae in patients with and without low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2001;10:228–33. doi: 10.1007/s005860100267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Peh WC, Siu TH, Chan JH. Determining the lumbar vertebral segments on magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 1999;24:1852–1855. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199909010-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Heller HJ, Sakhaee K, Moe OW, Pak CY. Etiological role of estrogen status in renal stone formation. J Urol. 2002;168:1923–1927. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64264-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Taylor EN, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC. Obesity, weight gain, and the risk of kidney stones. JAMA. 2005;293:455–462. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.4.455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Mahato NK. Relationship of sacral articular surfaces and gender with occurrence of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae. Spine J. 2011;11:961–965. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Olofin MU, Noronha C, Okanlawon A. Incidence of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae in low back pain patients. West Afr J Radiol. 2001;8:1–6. [Google Scholar]