Cargando…
Is Sacralization Really a Cause of Low Back Pain?
Objective. The aim of this study was to determine, by plain radiography, if there is a relationship between sacralization and low back pain. Methods. Five hundred lumbosacral radiographs of low back pain patients and 500 control groups were examined. Data collection consisted of the subject's a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045288/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24967117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/839013 |
_version_ | 1782319289452199936 |
---|---|
author | Bulut, Mehmet Uçar, Bekir Yavuz Uçar, Demet Azboy, İbrahim Demirtaş, Abdullah Alemdar, Celil Gem, Mehmet Özkul, Emin |
author_facet | Bulut, Mehmet Uçar, Bekir Yavuz Uçar, Demet Azboy, İbrahim Demirtaş, Abdullah Alemdar, Celil Gem, Mehmet Özkul, Emin |
author_sort | Bulut, Mehmet |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective. The aim of this study was to determine, by plain radiography, if there is a relationship between sacralization and low back pain. Methods. Five hundred lumbosacral radiographs of low back pain patients and 500 control groups were examined. Data collection consisted of the subject's age at the time of imaging, gender, number of lumbar vertebral bodies, and bilateral height measurement of the lowest lumbar transverse process. Dysplastic transverse processes were classified according to the Castellvi radiographic classification system. The incidence of sacralization in patients and the control groups was reported, and the anomaly was compared according to the groups. Results. Of these patients groups, 106 were classified as positive for sacralization, which resulted in an incidence of 21.2%. The most common anatomical variant was Castellvi Type IA (6.8%). In the control group, 84 were classified as positive for sacralization, which resulted in an incidence of 16.8%. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups for having sacralization (P = 0.09). Discussion. The relationship between sacralization and low back pain is not clear. Because of this controversial future studies need to focus on identifying other parameters that are relevant to distinguishing lumbosacral variation, as well as corroborating the results obtained here with data from other samples. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4045288 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40452882014-06-25 Is Sacralization Really a Cause of Low Back Pain? Bulut, Mehmet Uçar, Bekir Yavuz Uçar, Demet Azboy, İbrahim Demirtaş, Abdullah Alemdar, Celil Gem, Mehmet Özkul, Emin ISRN Orthop Clinical Study Objective. The aim of this study was to determine, by plain radiography, if there is a relationship between sacralization and low back pain. Methods. Five hundred lumbosacral radiographs of low back pain patients and 500 control groups were examined. Data collection consisted of the subject's age at the time of imaging, gender, number of lumbar vertebral bodies, and bilateral height measurement of the lowest lumbar transverse process. Dysplastic transverse processes were classified according to the Castellvi radiographic classification system. The incidence of sacralization in patients and the control groups was reported, and the anomaly was compared according to the groups. Results. Of these patients groups, 106 were classified as positive for sacralization, which resulted in an incidence of 21.2%. The most common anatomical variant was Castellvi Type IA (6.8%). In the control group, 84 were classified as positive for sacralization, which resulted in an incidence of 16.8%. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups for having sacralization (P = 0.09). Discussion. The relationship between sacralization and low back pain is not clear. Because of this controversial future studies need to focus on identifying other parameters that are relevant to distinguishing lumbosacral variation, as well as corroborating the results obtained here with data from other samples. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4045288/ /pubmed/24967117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/839013 Text en Copyright © 2013 Mehmet Bulut et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Bulut, Mehmet Uçar, Bekir Yavuz Uçar, Demet Azboy, İbrahim Demirtaş, Abdullah Alemdar, Celil Gem, Mehmet Özkul, Emin Is Sacralization Really a Cause of Low Back Pain? |
title | Is Sacralization Really a Cause of Low Back Pain? |
title_full | Is Sacralization Really a Cause of Low Back Pain? |
title_fullStr | Is Sacralization Really a Cause of Low Back Pain? |
title_full_unstemmed | Is Sacralization Really a Cause of Low Back Pain? |
title_short | Is Sacralization Really a Cause of Low Back Pain? |
title_sort | is sacralization really a cause of low back pain? |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045288/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24967117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/839013 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bulutmehmet issacralizationreallyacauseoflowbackpain AT ucarbekiryavuz issacralizationreallyacauseoflowbackpain AT ucardemet issacralizationreallyacauseoflowbackpain AT azboyibrahim issacralizationreallyacauseoflowbackpain AT demirtasabdullah issacralizationreallyacauseoflowbackpain AT alemdarcelil issacralizationreallyacauseoflowbackpain AT gemmehmet issacralizationreallyacauseoflowbackpain AT ozkulemin issacralizationreallyacauseoflowbackpain |