Citation

Yoganandan NA, Pintar FA, Stemper BD, Baisden JL, Aktay R, Shender BS, Paskoff G, Laud P. Bone 2006; 39(2): 336-344.

Affiliation

Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, 53226, USA. yoga@mcw.edu

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.bone.2006.01.160

PMID

16580272

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the bone mineral density (BMD) of cervical vertebrae and correlate with the lumbar spine. Fifty-seven young adult healthy male volunteers, ranging from 18 to 41 years of age, underwent quantitative computed tomography (QCT) scanning of C2-T1 and L2-L4 vertebrae. To account for correlations, repeated measures techniques were used to compare data as a function of spinal level and region. Linear regression methods were used (+/-95% CI) to compare data as a function of spinal level and region. The mean age and body height were 25.0 +/- 5.8 years and 181.0 +/- 7.6 cm. BMD decreased from the rostral to caudal direction along the spinal column. Grouped data indicated that the neck is the densest followed by the first thoracic vertebra and low back with mean BMD of 256.0 +/- 48.1, 194.3 +/- 44.2, and 172.2 +/- 28.4 mg/cm(3), respectively; differences were statistically significant. While BMD did not vary significantly between the three lumbar bodies, neck vertebrae demonstrated significant trends. The matrix of correlation coefficients between BMD and spinal level indicated that the relationship is strong in the lumbar (r = 0.92-0.96) and cervical (r = 0.73-0.92) spines. Data from the present study show that the trabecular bony architecture of the neck is significantly different from the low back. These quantitative BMD data from a controlled young adult healthy human male volunteer population may be valuable in establishing normative data specifically for the neck. From a trabecular bone density perspective, these results indicate that lumbar vertebrae cannot act as the best surrogates for neck vertebrae. Significant variations in densities among neck vertebrae, unlike the low back counterpart, may underscore the need to treat these bones as different structures.

Language: en