Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sagittal endplate morphology of the lower lumbar spine

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary of background data

The sagittal profile of lumbar endplates is discrepant from current simplified disc replacement and fusion device design. Endplate concavity is symmetrical in the coronal plane but shows considerable variability in the sagittal plane, which may lead to implant–endplate mismatch.

Objective

The aim of this investigation is to provide further analysis of the sagittal endplate morphology of the mid to lower lumbar spine study (L3–S1), thereby identifying the presence of common endplate shape patterns across these levels and providing morphological reference values complementing the findings of previous studies.

Study design

Observational study

Methods

A total of 174 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the adult lumbar spine from the digital archive of our centre, which met the inclusion criteria, were studied. Superior (SEP) and inferior (IEP) endplate shape was divided into flat (no concavity), oblong (homogeneous concavity) and ex-centric (inhomogeneous concavity). The concavity depth (ECD) and location of concavity apex (ECA) relative to endplate diameter of the vertebrae L3–S1 were determined.

Results

Flat endplates were only predominant at the sacrum SEP (84.5%). The L5 SEP was flat in 24.7% and all other endplates in less than 10%. The majority of endplates were concave with a clear trend of endplate shape becoming more ex-centric from L3 IEP (56.9% oblong vs. 37.4% ex-centric) to L5 IEP (4% oblong vs. 94.3% ex-centric). Ex-centric ECA were always found in the posterior half of the lumbar endplates. Both the oblong and ex-centric ECD was 2–3 mm on average with the IEP of a motion segment regularly possessing the greater depth. A sex- or age-related difference could not be found.

Conclusion

The majority of lumbar endplates are concave, while the majority of sacral endplates are flat. An oblong and an ex-centric endplate shape can be distinguished, whereby the latter is more common at the lower lumbar levels. The apex of the concavity of ex-centric discs is located in the posterior half of the endplate and the concavity of the inferior endplate is deeper than that of the superior endplate. Based on the above, the current TDR and ALIF implant design does not sufficiently match the morphology of lumbar endplates in the sagittal plane.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boszczyk BM, Boszczyk AA, Putz R (2001) Comparative and functional anatomy of the mammalian lumbar spine. Anat Rec 264:157–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen H, Jiang D, Ou Y, Zhong J, Lv F (2011) Geometry of thoracolumbar vertebral endplates of the human spine. Eur Spine J 20:1814–1820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van der Houwen EB, Baron P, Veldhuizen AG et al (2010) Geometry of the intervertebral volume and vertebral endplates of the human spine. Ann Biomed Eng 38:33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pfirrmann C, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M et al (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–1878

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ (2003) Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charite disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:369–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Punt IM, Visser VM, van Rhijn LW, Kurtz SM et al (2008) Complications and reoperations of the SB Charite lumbar disc prosthesis: experience in 75 patients. Eur Spine J 17:36–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gstoettner M, Heider D, Liebensteiner M, Bach CM (2008) Footprint mismatch in lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 11:1470–1475

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ravi B, Rampersaud R (2008) Clinical magnification error in lateral spinal digital radiographs. Spine 33:E311–E316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, UK

    Palaniappan Lakshmanan & Balaji Purushothaman

  2. The Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queen’s Medical Centre Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals, Derby Road, West Block D Floor, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK

    Vlasta Dvorak, Walter Schratt, Sathya Thambiraj & Bronek Maximilian Boszczyk

Authors
  1. Palaniappan Lakshmanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Balaji Purushothaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vlasta Dvorak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Walter Schratt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sathya Thambiraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bronek Maximilian Boszczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Palaniappan Lakshmanan or Bronek Maximilian Boszczyk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lakshmanan, P., Purushothaman, B., Dvorak, V. et al. Sagittal endplate morphology of the lower lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 21 (Suppl 2), 160–164 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2168-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2168-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation