Lumbosacral Transitional Vertebrae in Low Back Pain Population
|Bekir Yavuz Uçar1*, Demet ErdoÄan Uçar2, Mehmet Bulut1, Ä°brahim Azboy1 and Abdullah DemirtaÅ1|
|1Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey|
|2Department of Physical Treatment and Rehabilitation, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey|
|Corresponding Author :||Bekir Yavuz Uçar
Dicle University, Medical Faculty
E-mail: [email protected]
|Received October 29, 2012; Accepted November 26, 2012; Published November 28, 2012|
|Citation: Uçar BY, Uçar DE, Bulut M, Azboy I, Demirtas A (2012) Lumbosacral Transitional Vertebrae in Low Back Pain Population. J Spine 2:125. doi:10.4172/2165-7939.1000125|
|Copyright: © 2012 Uçar BY, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.|
Background: The relationship between lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and low back pain is not clear. This controversy has been quite intriguing and has been the stimulus for carrying out this present study. The aim of this study was to determine, by plain radiography, if there is a relationship between lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and low back pain.
Material and methods: Five hundred lumbosacral radiographs of low back pain patients were examined.
Dysplastic transverse process was classified according to the Castellvi radiographic classification system. The incidence of lumbosacral transitional vertebra in patients with low back pain was reported, and the patients who had anomaly were compared according to gender and age.
Results: Of these patients, 118 were classified as positive for transitional lumbosacral vertebra, resulted in an incidence of 23.6%. The most common anatomical variant was Castellvi Type IA (6.8%). No statistically significant difference was found between these two age groups according to incidence of lumbosacral transitional vertebra (p=0.207). There were no statistically significant differences between men and women who had anomaly (p=0.289). Higher incidences of Type IB and Type IIB were found in men, but those results were not statistically significant (p=0.112, p=0.514) when compared with the female group.
Conclusion: Based on our data, we conclude that lumbosacral transitional segments are common in the low back pain population. But no relationship found between age and genders.