Skip to main content
Log in

Morphological evaluation of the coccyx with multidetector computed tomography

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the morphology of the coccyx in adults with multidetector computed tomography and to contribute to the classification of the coccyx using intercoccygeal and sacrococcygeal angle measurements.

Methods

The pelvic computed tomography images of 224 patients were retrospectively evaluated. The multiplanar reconstruction and 3D volume rendering images of the coccyx were obtained from all patients at sagittal and coronal planes. The morphology of the coccyx, number of bone segments, the presence of scoliosis, and presence of sacrococcygeal and intercoccygeal fusion were evaluated. After the measurement of coccygeal length, width, and thickness, intercoccygeal and sacrococcygeal angles were also calculated in all patients.

Results

The morphological classification showed that 136 patients (60.7%) had type 1, 65 patients (29%) had type 2, and 17 patients (7.6%) had type 3 coccyx. The intercoccygeal angle was zero degree in five patients (type 0) and one patient had retroverted coccyx (type 5). The coccyx had four segments in 155 patients (69.2%), three segments in 52 patients (23.2%), five segments in 15 patients (6.7%), two segments in one patient (0.4%), and one segment in one patient (0.4%).

Conclusion

We determined patients with an intercoccygeal angle of zero degree, which is not mentioned in the literature before, and we propose to use the term “type 0” for these patients in the classification of coccyx. The coccygeal measurements and classification will be instructive for the radiologists and have a guiding role for the future studies.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aggarwal A, Kaur H, Batra YK, Aggarwal AK, Rajeev S, Sahni D (2009) Anatomic consideration of caudal epidural space: a cadaver study. Clin Anat 22(6):730–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akin K, Kosehan D, Topcu A, Koktener A (2011) Anatomic evaluation of the xiphoid process with 64-row multidetector computed tomography. Skelet Radiol 40(4):447–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Karadimas EJ, Trypsiannis G, Giannoudis PV (2011) Surgical treatment of coccygodynia: an analytic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 20:698–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kerimoglu U, Dagoglu MG, Ergen FB (2007) Intercoccygeal angle and type of coccyx in asymptomatic patients. Surg Radiol Anat 29(8):683–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim NH, Kyunk SS (1999) Clinical and radiological differences between traumatic and idiopathic coccygodynia. Yonsei Med J 40:215–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Marwan YA, Al-Saeed OM, Esmaeel AA, Kombar OR, Bendary AM, Azeem ME (2014) Computed tomography–based morphologic and morphometric features of the coccyx among Arab adults. Spine 39(20):E1210–E1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Oh CS, Chung IH, Ji HJ, Yoon DM (2004) Clinical implications of topographic anatomy on the ganglion impar. Anesthesiology 101(1):249–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pelin C, Duyar I, Kayahan EM, Zagyapan R, Agildere AM, Erar A (2005) Body height estimation based on dimensions of sacral and coccygeal vertebrae. J Forensic Sci 50(2):294–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Postacchini F, Massobrio M (1983) Idiopathic coccygodynia. Analysis of fifty-one operative cases and a radiographic study of the normal coccyx. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65(8):1116–1124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Przybylski P, Pankowicz M, Boćkowska A et al (2013) Evaluation of coccygeal bone variability, intercoccygeal and lumbo-sacral angles in asymptomatic patients in multislice computed tomography. Anat Sci Int 88(4):204–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Simpson J (1859) Clinical lectures on the diseases of women. Lecture XVII: coccydynia and diseases and deformities of the coccyx. Med Times Gaz 40:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  12. Woon JT, Perumal V, Maigne JY, Stringer MD (2013) CT morphology and morphometry of the normal adult coccyx. Eur Spine J 22(4):863–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yamashita K (1988) Radiological study of 1500 coccyces. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 62:23–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yoon MG, Moon MS, Park BK, Lee H, Kim DH (2016) Analysis of sacrococcygeal morphology in Koreans using computed tomography. Clin Orthop Surg 8(4):412–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Azad Hekimoglu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hekimoglu, A., Ergun, O. Morphological evaluation of the coccyx with multidetector computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat 41, 1519–1524 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-019-02325-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-019-02325-5

Keywords

Navigation