Facet tropism is not associated with lumbar spondylolysis: a computed tomography-based three-dimensional morphometric case-control study.

IF 1
Muhammed Enes Karataş, Mehmet Akif Çaçan, İsmail Türkten, Kadriye Betül Pençe, Bayram Ufuk Şakul
{"title":"Facet tropism is not associated with lumbar spondylolysis: a computed tomography-based three-dimensional morphometric case-control study.","authors":"Muhammed Enes Karataş, Mehmet Akif Çaçan, İsmail Türkten, Kadriye Betül Pençe, Bayram Ufuk Şakul","doi":"10.5152/j.aott.2026.261005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Facet tropism has been proposed as a morphologic modifier of posterior element loading, but prior evidence in lumbar spondylolysis is inconsistent and often based on 2D measurements. This study aimed to evaluate whether facet tropism differs between patients with lumbar spondylolysis and controls using a CT-based three-dimensional (3D) morphometric workflow with vertebra-anchored reference planes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective case-control study included 39 individuals: 19 with CT-confirmed lumbar spondylolysis and 20 controls (age and sex comparable). Vertebrae L1-L5 were segmented, 3D surface models were generated, and best-fit planes were computed for each superior and inferior facet surface bilaterally. Facet orientation was quantified relative to sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes. Facet tropism (FT) was defined as the absolute right-left difference in facet angles for the same level and facet type; FT presence was descriptively defined as >5, while hypothesis testing used continuous FT values. Group comparisons were performed across L1-L5 and for prespecified lowerlumbar segment metrics (L4-L5 facet-plane mismatch and L5v intra-vertebral mismatch).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Spondylolysis involved L5 in 18/19 patients (4 unilateral, 14 bilateral) and L4 in 1/19. Across L1-L5, facet tropism (FT) did not differ between groups for either superior or inferior facets in any plane (all p > .05). The greatest numerical difference was observed for L5 inferior FT on the sagittal plane (controls 10.38 } 9.40 vs. patients 7.51 } 10.93), but this comparison did not reach statistical significance (p = .092). Lower-lumbar segment-focused mismatch measures also showed no between-group differences (all p > .05). Frontal-plane and sagittal-plane angles showed strong positive correlations in both groups (controls: r = 0.811-0.998; patients: r = 0.851-0.995; all p < .05), whereas transverse-plane parameters showed no meaningful associations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using CT-based 3D morphometry, no statistically significant association between facet tropism and lumbar spondylolysis was demonstrated in the present study population, and facet tropism did not discriminate cases from controls across lumbar levels or lowerlumbar segmental mismatch metrics. In this cohort, which was predominantly characterized by L5 involvement and frequent bilateral defects, side-to-side facet asymmetry did not appear to represent a major independent morphologic marker when measured with a standardized 3D framework.   Cite this article as: Karatas ME, .a.an MA, Türkten İ, Pen.e KB, Şakul BU. Facet tropism is not associated with lumbar spondylolysis: a computed tomography- based three-dimensional morphometric case-control study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc., 2026; 60(4), 1005, doi: 10.5152/j.aott.2026.261005.</p>","PeriodicalId":93854,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica","volume":"60 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13657332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/j.aott.2026.261005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Facet tropism has been proposed as a morphologic modifier of posterior element loading, but prior evidence in lumbar spondylolysis is inconsistent and often based on 2D measurements. This study aimed to evaluate whether facet tropism differs between patients with lumbar spondylolysis and controls using a CT-based three-dimensional (3D) morphometric workflow with vertebra-anchored reference planes.

Methods: This retrospective case-control study included 39 individuals: 19 with CT-confirmed lumbar spondylolysis and 20 controls (age and sex comparable). Vertebrae L1-L5 were segmented, 3D surface models were generated, and best-fit planes were computed for each superior and inferior facet surface bilaterally. Facet orientation was quantified relative to sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes. Facet tropism (FT) was defined as the absolute right-left difference in facet angles for the same level and facet type; FT presence was descriptively defined as >5, while hypothesis testing used continuous FT values. Group comparisons were performed across L1-L5 and for prespecified lowerlumbar segment metrics (L4-L5 facet-plane mismatch and L5v intra-vertebral mismatch).

Results: Spondylolysis involved L5 in 18/19 patients (4 unilateral, 14 bilateral) and L4 in 1/19. Across L1-L5, facet tropism (FT) did not differ between groups for either superior or inferior facets in any plane (all p > .05). The greatest numerical difference was observed for L5 inferior FT on the sagittal plane (controls 10.38 } 9.40 vs. patients 7.51 } 10.93), but this comparison did not reach statistical significance (p = .092). Lower-lumbar segment-focused mismatch measures also showed no between-group differences (all p > .05). Frontal-plane and sagittal-plane angles showed strong positive correlations in both groups (controls: r = 0.811-0.998; patients: r = 0.851-0.995; all p < .05), whereas transverse-plane parameters showed no meaningful associations.

Conclusion: Using CT-based 3D morphometry, no statistically significant association between facet tropism and lumbar spondylolysis was demonstrated in the present study population, and facet tropism did not discriminate cases from controls across lumbar levels or lowerlumbar segmental mismatch metrics. In this cohort, which was predominantly characterized by L5 involvement and frequent bilateral defects, side-to-side facet asymmetry did not appear to represent a major independent morphologic marker when measured with a standardized 3D framework.   Cite this article as: Karatas ME, .a.an MA, Türkten İ, Pen.e KB, Şakul BU. Facet tropism is not associated with lumbar spondylolysis: a computed tomography- based three-dimensional morphometric case-control study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc., 2026; 60(4), 1005, doi: 10.5152/j.aott.2026.261005.

小关节突向与腰椎峡部裂无关:一项基于计算机断层扫描的三维形态测量病例对照研究。
目的:小关节突向已被认为是后路元件负荷的形态学改变因素,但腰椎峡部裂的先前证据不一致,并且通常基于二维测量。本研究旨在利用基于ct的三维(3D)形态测量工作流程和椎骨锚定参考平面来评估腰椎峡部裂患者和对照组的关节突向性是否不同。方法:本回顾性病例对照研究纳入39例患者:19例ct确诊腰椎峡部裂,20例对照组(年龄和性别可比)。对L1-L5椎体进行分割,生成三维表面模型,并对两侧各上下小面进行最优拟合平面计算。相对于矢状面、额面和横面,对关节面定向进行量化。Facet tropism (FT)定义为相同水平和Facet类型的Facet角度的绝对左右差异;FT存在被描述性地定义为bbb50,而假设检验使用连续FT值。通过L1-L5和预先指定的下腰椎节段指标(L4-L5面面不匹配和L5v椎内不匹配)进行组间比较。结果:18/19例(4例单侧,14例双侧)峡部裂累及L5, 1/19例累及L4。在L1-L5中,各组间任何平面上或下关节面的关节突向性(FT)均无差异(p < 0.05)。L5下段矢状面FT数值差异最大(对照组10.38}9.40 vs.患者7.51}10.93),但差异无统计学意义(p = 0.092)。以下腰椎节段为重点的失配测量也没有显示组间差异(均p < 0.05)。两组患者的额面角和矢状面角呈极显著正相关(对照组:r = 0.811-0.998;患者:r = 0.851-0.995, p均< 0.05),而横切面参数无显著相关性。结论:使用基于ct的三维形态测量技术,在本研究人群中,没有统计学意义上证明小关节突向性和腰椎峡部裂之间的关联,并且小关节突向性在腰椎水平或下腰椎节段失配指标上与对照组没有区别。在这个主要以L5受累和频繁的双侧缺陷为特征的队列中,当用标准化的3D框架测量时,侧对侧小关节面不对称似乎并不是一个主要的独立形态学标志。引用本文如下:Karatas ME, a。文学硕士, rkten İ,宾州。e KB, Şakul BU。小关节突向与腰椎峡部裂无关:一项基于计算机断层扫描的三维形态测量病例对照研究。骨科创伤学报。, 2026;60(4), 1005, doi: 10.5152/j.aott.2026.261005。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书