Morphological evaluation of the coccyx with multidetector computed tomography

  • Azad HekimogluEmail author
  • Onur Ergun
Original Article



This study aims to evaluate the morphology of the coccyx in adults with multidetector computed tomography and to contribute to the classification of the coccyx using intercoccygeal and sacrococcygeal angle measurements.


The pelvic computed tomography images of 224 patients were retrospectively evaluated. The multiplanar reconstruction and 3D volume rendering images of the coccyx were obtained from all patients at sagittal and coronal planes. The morphology of the coccyx, number of bone segments, the presence of scoliosis, and presence of sacrococcygeal and intercoccygeal fusion were evaluated. After the measurement of coccygeal length, width, and thickness, intercoccygeal and sacrococcygeal angles were also calculated in all patients.


The morphological classification showed that 136 patients (60.7%) had type 1, 65 patients (29%) had type 2, and 17 patients (7.6%) had type 3 coccyx. The intercoccygeal angle was zero degree in five patients (type 0) and one patient had retroverted coccyx (type 5). The coccyx had four segments in 155 patients (69.2%), three segments in 52 patients (23.2%), five segments in 15 patients (6.7%), two segments in one patient (0.4%), and one segment in one patient (0.4%).


We determined patients with an intercoccygeal angle of zero degree, which is not mentioned in the literature before, and we propose to use the term “type 0” for these patients in the classification of coccyx. The coccygeal measurements and classification will be instructive for the radiologists and have a guiding role for the future studies.


Anatomic variation Coccyx Morphological findings Multidetector computed tomography 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Aggarwal A, Kaur H, Batra YK, Aggarwal AK, Rajeev S, Sahni D (2009) Anatomic consideration of caudal epidural space: a cadaver study. Clin Anat 22(6):730–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akin K, Kosehan D, Topcu A, Koktener A (2011) Anatomic evaluation of the xiphoid process with 64-row multidetector computed tomography. Skelet Radiol 40(4):447–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karadimas EJ, Trypsiannis G, Giannoudis PV (2011) Surgical treatment of coccygodynia: an analytic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 20:698–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kerimoglu U, Dagoglu MG, Ergen FB (2007) Intercoccygeal angle and type of coccyx in asymptomatic patients. Surg Radiol Anat 29(8):683–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim NH, Kyunk SS (1999) Clinical and radiological differences between traumatic and idiopathic coccygodynia. Yonsei Med J 40:215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marwan YA, Al-Saeed OM, Esmaeel AA, Kombar OR, Bendary AM, Azeem ME (2014) Computed tomography–based morphologic and morphometric features of the coccyx among Arab adults. Spine 39(20):E1210–E1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oh CS, Chung IH, Ji HJ, Yoon DM (2004) Clinical implications of topographic anatomy on the ganglion impar. Anesthesiology 101(1):249–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pelin C, Duyar I, Kayahan EM, Zagyapan R, Agildere AM, Erar A (2005) Body height estimation based on dimensions of sacral and coccygeal vertebrae. J Forensic Sci 50(2):294–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Postacchini F, Massobrio M (1983) Idiopathic coccygodynia. Analysis of fifty-one operative cases and a radiographic study of the normal coccyx. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65(8):1116–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Przybylski P, Pankowicz M, Boćkowska A et al (2013) Evaluation of coccygeal bone variability, intercoccygeal and lumbo-sacral angles in asymptomatic patients in multislice computed tomography. Anat Sci Int 88(4):204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simpson J (1859) Clinical lectures on the diseases of women. Lecture XVII: coccydynia and diseases and deformities of the coccyx. Med Times Gaz 40:1–7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woon JT, Perumal V, Maigne JY, Stringer MD (2013) CT morphology and morphometry of the normal adult coccyx. Eur Spine J 22(4):863–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamashita K (1988) Radiological study of 1500 coccyces. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 62:23–36Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoon MG, Moon MS, Park BK, Lee H, Kim DH (2016) Analysis of sacrococcygeal morphology in Koreans using computed tomography. Clin Orthop Surg 8(4):412–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyDiskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research HospitalDiskapi/AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations