##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abstract

This cross-sectional study was carried out with an attempt to construct data on different dimensions of the body of 153 dry fully ossified human fifth lumbar vertebrae. This study observed that the mean ± SD of anterior body height (ABH) and vertebral body width (VBW) were 22.8 ± 2.6 mm and 39.7 ± 2.9mm respectively in male. The mean ± SD of these same variables were 21.5 ± 2.3 mm and 36.8 ± 2.4 mm respectively in female. In male, the mean ± SD of lateral body height (LBH) were 22.6 ± 2.5 mm on left and 23.1 ± 2.3mm on right side. The mean ± SD of the same variables were 21.6 ± 1.9 mm on left and 22.3 ± 1.9 mm on right side in female. All values were significantly higher in male than that of female.

Keywords

Anterior body height (ABH) Vertebral body width (VBW) Lateral body height (LBH)

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Author Biographies

Kohinur Sultana, Dhaka Community Medical College, Dhaka

Department of Anatomy, Dhaka Community Medical College, Dhaka

Krishna Chandra Kundu, Colonel Malek Medical College, Manikganj

Department of Anatomy, Colonel Malek Medical College, Manikganj

Quazi Shamsunnahar Yasmin, Dhaka Community Medical College & Hospital, Moghbazar, Dhaka

Department of Anatomy, Dhaka Community Medical College, Dhaka

Fahmida Zaman, MH Samorita Hospital & Medical College, Dhaka

Department of Anatomy, MH Samorita Hospital & Medical College, Dhaka

Md. Osman Goni, Colonel Malek Medical College, Manikganj

Department of Surgery, Colonel Malek Medical College, Manikganj

How to Cite
1.
Sultana K, Kundu KC, Yasmin QS, Zaman F, Goni MO. An Anthropometric study of Human Dry Fifth Lumber Vertebra. CMMCJ [Internet]. 2019 Jul. 31 [cited 2022 Aug. 13];2(02):26-30. Available from: https://cmmcj.org/index.php/cmmcj/article/view/25

##journal.references##

  1. Krishan K. Anthropometry in forensic medicine and forensic science – ‘Forensic Anthropometry’. The Internet Journal of Forensic Science. 2007; 2(1): 1540-1622.
  2. Sanli SG, Kizilkanat ED, Boyan N, Ozsahin ET, Bozkir MG, Soames R, Erol H and Oguz O. Stature estimation based on hand length and foot length. Clinical Anatomy. 2005; 18: 589-596.
  3. Snell RS. Clinical Anatomy By Regions. 8th edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 2008; pp. 851-898.
  4. Chandanwale AS, Giripunje NB, Rajput Y, Loganathan B, Jadhao AB and Nawale SN. Morphometric study of lumbar pedicles in Indian
  5. population. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2009; 6(4):9-17.
  6. Nachemson AL. The lumbar spine : An orthopaedic challenge. Spine. 1976; 1(1): 59 – 71.
  7. Lindsay KW and Bone I (Eds). Neurology and Neurosurgery illustrated. 4th edition. London : Churchill Livingstone. 2004; pp. 215-423.
  8. Junno JA, Niskanen M, Nieminen MT, Maijanen H, Niinimaki J, Bloigu R and Tuukkanen J. Temporal trends in vertebral size and shape from medieval to modern day. Plos One. 2009; 4(3): 1-5.
  9. Wolf A, Shoham M, Michael S and Moshe R. Morphometric study of the human lumbar spine for operation - workspace specifications. Spine. 2001; 26(22): 2472-2477.
  10. Mas NG, Karabekir H, Ertekin T, Edizer M, Canon Y and Duyar I. Evaluation of lumbar vertebral body and disc: a stereological morphometric study. International Journal of Morphology. 2010; 28(3): 841-847.
  11. Masharawi Y, Salame K, Mirovsky Y, Peleg S, Dar G, Steinberg N and Hershkovitz I. Vertebral body shape variation in the thoracic and lumbar spine: Characterization of its asymmetry and wedging. Clinical Anatomy. 2008; 21: 46-54.
  12. Masharawi Y and Salame K. Shape variation of the neural arch in the thoracic and lumbar spine: Characterization and relationship with the vertebral body shape. Clinical Anatomy. 2011; 24: 858-867.
  13. Wescott DJ. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae: classification of variation and association with low back pain. Master of Arts. Missouri-Columbia: Graduate School University. 2005; pp. 36-80.
  14. Rakhawy ME, Rahman AE, Shahat EI, Labib I and Abdulaziz E. Lumbar vertebral canal stenosis: concept of morphometric and radiometric study of the human lumbar vertebral canal. International Journal of Experimental and Clinical Anatomy. 2010; 4: 51- 62.
  15. Allbright AS. Sexual Dimorphism in the Vertebral Column. Master of Arts. Knoxville:The University of Tennessee. 2007; pp. 29 - 124.
  16. Diacinti D, Acca M, D’Erasmo E, Tomei E and Mazzuoli GF. Aging changes in vertebral morphometry. Calcified Tissue International.
  17. ; 57(6): 426-429.
  18. Karabekir HS, Mas NG, Edizer M, Ertekin T, Yazici C and Atamturk D. Lumbar vertebra morphometry and stereological assessment of
  19. intervertebral space volumetry: A methodological study. Annals of Anatomy. 2011; 193: 231-236.
  20. Eisenstein S. The morphometry and pathological anatomy of the lumbar spine in South African negroes and caucasoids with specific reference to spinal stenosis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 1977; 59(2): 173-180.
  21. Gupta R and Singla RK. Thoracolumbar neural canal - A morphometric and morphological study in north Indian population. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences. 2011; 11: 1-7.
  22. Tacar O, Demirant A, Nas K and Altindag O. Morphology of the lumbar spinal canal in normal adult turks. Yonsei Medical Journal. 2003; 44(4): 679-685.
  23. Amonoo-Kuofi HS. Maximum and minimum lumbar interpedicular distances in normal adult Nigerians. Journal of Anatomy. 1982; 135(2): 225-233.
  24. Vinay KV and Vishal K. A study of transverse diameter of the lumbar spinal canal in normal South Indians using CR- 35 X digitizer. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Science. 2012; 2(2): 30-35.