Maximum and minimum lumbar interpedicular distances in normal adult Nigerians

Abstract

The pioneering work of Elsberg & Dyke (1934) and later reports by Landmesser & Heublein (1953), Verbiest (1954, 1955), Simril & Thurston (1955), Schwarz (1956), Hinck, Clark & Hopkins (1966) have established the clinical value of measurements of interpedicular distances in the diagnosis of narrowing of the spinal canal. Verbiest (1954) pointed out that the bony canal could be developmentally narrow, whilst Scheslinger & Taveras (1953) and Verbiest (1954, 1955) described some of the effects of the narrow canal. Since then, the size of the spinal canal has attracted increasing interest. Various techniques, including plain radiographs, myelography, epidural venography, computed tomography and diagnostic ultrasound, have been used to measure the size of the lumbar spinal canal (Hinck et al. 1966; Kirkaldy- Willis, Paine, Cauchoix & Mclvor, 1974; Gargano, Jacobson & Rosomoff, 1974; Eisenstein, 1977; Sheldon, Sersland & Leborgne, 1977; Chynn, Altman, Shaw & Finby, 1978; Porter, Wicks & Ottewell, 1978; Bestawros, Vreeland & Goldman, 1979). Although each technique has its own limitations, Chynn et al. (1978) observed that plain radiographs are of great value in the diagnosis of lumbar spinal canal stenosis.