Abstract
IntroductionThe coccyx is well-known to be a highly variable structure considering its morphology. To our knowledge, the relationship between the coccygeal types and other morphological features has not been studied yet. In addition to the interrelations among morphological parameters, this study investigated the morphology and morphometry of coccyx more extensively in the adult Turkish population using computerized tomography images.MethodsFive hundred subjects who underwent pelvic computerized tomography were included in this study. In addition to coccyx type and the counts of coccygeal vertebrae and segments, the presence of coccygeal deviation, sacrococcygeal joint (SCJ) fusion, SCJ subluxation, intercoccygeal joint (ICJ) fusion, and coccygeal spicule were evaluated. The coccygeal length, sacrococcygeal angle, and intercoccygeal angle were measured on the digital workstation. The findings were subjected to statistical analyses.ResultsThe coccygeal vertebra count ranged between three to five, with an average of 4.04 ± 0.48. The range of coccygeal segment count was between one and five, with an average of 2.53 ± 1.02. ICJ fusion in any segment, SCJ fusion, and SCJ subluxation were identified in 397 subjects (79.4%), 343 subjects (68.6%), and 17 subjects (3.4%), respectively. The coccyx types from the most common to the least common were as follows: type 2, type 1, type 3, type 4, and type 5. Coccygeal deviation to the left side was observed in 71 subjects (14.2%), while coccygeal deviation to the right side was observed in 61 subjects (12.2%). A coccygeal spicule was identified in 73 subjects (14.6%). The subjects’ mean age demonstrated no significant difference considering the ICJ fusion (p=0.271), SCJ subluxation (p=0.51), coccygeal spicule (p=0.337), features of coccygeal deviation (p=0.83), and coccyx types (p=0.11). The subjects with SCJ fusion (50.7 ± 18.3 years) were significantly older than the subjects without SCJ fusion (46.5 ± 18.5 years) (p=0.016). The differences between the coccyx types considering the rate of SCJ fusion (p=0.002), ICJ fusion (p=0.04), and spicule presence (p<0.001) as well as the coccygeal vertebra count (p<0.001) were significant.ConclusionThe presence of coccygeal spicule, a risk factor for coccydynia, is reported to be 14.6% in this study group that represents the Turkish population. This study indicates an association between the coccyx types and the frequency of SCJ fusion, ICJ fusion, and spicule presence and consequently suggests the significance of the coccyx type among the morphological features to cause susceptibility to coccydynia. Due to the multiplicity of the pain generators in the coccygeal region that is established by previous reports, the comparisons of different human populations and the knowledge on the interrelations between the morphologic parameters might facilitate the comprehension of the etiology of coccydynia. The clarification of interrelationship existence among the coccygeal morphological parameters requires further investigations.
Highlights
The coccyx is well-known to be a highly variable structure considering its morphology
The differences between the coccyx types considering the rate of sacrococcygeal joint (SCJ) fusion (p=0.002), intercoccygeal joint (ICJ) fusion (p=0.04), and spicule presence (p
This study indicates an association between the coccyx types and the frequency of SCJ fusion, ICJ fusion, and spicule presence and suggests the significance of the coccyx type among the morphological features to cause susceptibility to coccydynia
Summary
Five hundred subjects who underwent pelvic computerized tomography were included in this study. In addition to coccyx type and the counts of coccygeal vertebrae and segments, the presence of coccygeal deviation, sacrococcygeal joint (SCJ) fusion, SCJ subluxation, intercoccygeal joint (ICJ) fusion, and coccygeal spicule were evaluated. The coccygeal length, sacrococcygeal angle, and intercoccygeal angle were measured on the digital workstation. A retrospective review was performed on consecutive patients who underwent pelvic CT examination between April 2018 and October 2018 in the authors’ institution. The institutional review board of Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University approved the study protocol (approval date: April 4, 2018; issue: 7-10). The images of the patients were assessed with axial scans and sagittal and coronal reformats. The measurements were performed on Workstation (Apple Inc., Cupertino, California, US; OsiriX V.4.9 imaging software Pixmeo, Switzerland). The radiologic evaluation was performed by the author experienced in musculoskeletal system radiology (GG)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
