4.5 Article

The cortical shell architecture of human cervical vertebral bodies

期刊

SPINE
卷 26, 期 22, 页码 2478-2484

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200111150-00016

关键词

quantitative anatomy; cervical vertebral body; cortical thickness; endplate thickness; biomechanics

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01-AR45452] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. An anatomic study of cervical vertebral bodies. Objectives. To provide quantitative information on the cortical shell architecture of the middle and lower cervical vertebral bodies. Summary of Background Data, Some external dimensions have been measured, but little quantitative data exists for the cortical shell architecture of the vertebral bodies of the cervical spine. Methods. Twenty-one human cervical vertebral bodies (C3-C7) were sectioned along parasagittal planes into five 1.7-mm thin slices for each vertebra. Radiographs of each slice were digitized, and external and internal dimensions were measured. Averages and standard deviations were computed. Single factor analysis of variance was used to determine significant (P < 0.05) differences between the vertebral levels. Results. The superior endplate was thickest in the posterior region (range 0.74-0.89 mm) and thinnest in the anterior region (range 0.44-0.56 mm). The inferior endplate was thickest in the anterior region (range 0.61-0.81 mm) and thinnest in the posterior region (range 0.49-0.62 mm). In the central region, the superior endplate (range 0.42-0.58 mm) was thinner than the inferior endplate (range 0.53-0.64 mm). Variation with vertebral level was dependent on the dimension studied. Conclusions. Comprehensive quantitative anatomic data of the middle and lower cervical vertebral bodies have been obtained, This may be useful in improving the understanding of the three-column and other vertebral-fracture theories, the fidelity of the finite element models of cervical spine, and the designs of surgical instrumentation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据