Quantification of the upper and second sacral segment safe zones in normal and dysmorphic sacra.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the obliquity and dimensions of the upper and second sacral segment iliosacral screw safe zones and to determine the differences between normal and dysmorphic sacral morphology.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

University Level I trauma center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Fifty patients with pelvic computed tomography scans.

INTERVENTION

All sacra were characterized as normal or dysmorphic based on plain pelvic radiographs and previously described criteria. Multiple computed tomography scan reconstructions were viewed and manipulated simultaneously with 6 degrees of freedom to allow for custom visualization in any plane.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

In each patient, a unique reconstruction plane was created perpendicular to the safe zone axis. The narrowest safe zone cross-sectional area was measured. Next, on simulated pelvic outlet and inlet views, safe zone obliquity and width were measured. Finally, the space available for a transverse screw was assessed. Measurements were performed for both upper and second sacral segment. Values for normal and dysmorphic safe zones were compared.

RESULTS

Sacral dysmorphism was identified in 22 patients. In these sacra, the upper sacral segment safe zone cross-section was 36% smaller than in normal sacra (P < 0.001). No transverse screws could be placed, but accommodating for the caudal to cranial obliquity (30° versus 21° in normals, P < 0.001) and posterior to anterior obliquity (15% versus 4% in normals, P < 0.001) of the safe zone, an iliosacral screw at least 75 mm in length could be placed safely in 91% of patients. A transverse screw could be placed in 75% of normal sacra. In the second segment safe zone, the cross-sectional area was more than twice as large in dysmorphic sacra compared to normals (220 mm versus 109 mm, P < 0.001). The obliquity was not different on either the inlet or outlet views between groups. A transverse screw could be placed at this level in 95% of those with dysmorphic sacra and in only 50% of normal sacra.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacral dysmorphism occurred in 44% of patients in this consecutive series. Many anatomic differences were consistently found between the two morphologies with clinical relevance to iliosacral screw placement. Specifically, the dysmorphic upper sacral segment safe zone is significantly smaller and more obliquely oriented but is still large enough to accommodate an iliosacral screw in nearly all patients. The second sacral segment safe zone is approximately transversely oriented in both sacral types but is more than twice as large in dysmorphic sacra. This segment may be a primary fixation opportunity in patients with sacral dysmorphism.