Anatomical Science International

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12565-020-00544-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Morphometric analysis of the costal facet of the thoracic vertebrae

Benoît Beyer1,2,3 · David Biteau2 · Olivier Snoeck1 · Pierre‑Michel Dugailly1 · Markus Bastir3 · Véronique Feipel1,2

Received: 25 October 2019 / Accepted: 16 April 2020

© Japanese Association of Anatomists 2020

Abstract
Various studies have examined morphometric features of the vertebrae to understand the functional aspects of the spine.
Geometric analysis of vertebral zygapophyseal facets has also been related to functional and clinical aspects of the spine,
but no quantitative investigation of the costotransverse joint facet is found in the literature. The costal facet geometry may
partly determine the mechanical interaction between the rib cage and spine for trunk stabilization during functional tasks
and during breathing. Therefore, the present study proposes a method for estimating the 3D geometric features of the costal
facets of the first 10 thoracic vertebrae (Th1–Th10). Series of landmarks (95 ± 43) were placed on 258 costal facets from a
sample of 14 asymptomatic individuals to determine their 3D location and orientation. The relative location of the costal facet
was used to investigate symmetry and asymmetry components of the overall vertebrae shape variation among thoracic levels
using 3D geometric morphometric methods. Results showed significant variation in sagittal orientation (inclination angle)
between levels with a gradual cephalic orientation in the lower levels. No significant difference was observed on transverse
orientation (declination angle). The shape of the costal facet was flatter at Th1 and from Th5 to Th10 and more concave
from Th2 to Th4. An average difference of 7° between right and left facet orientation in both sagittal and transverse plane
was demonstrated. Asymmetry of costal facet relative location was also detected and significantly influenced by the thoracic
level. Nevertheless, location and orientation of the costal facets seem to be independent features of vertebrae morphology.

Keywords Costal facet · Thoracic vertebra · Geometric morphometric · Tropism · Transverse process

Introduction injury mechanisms of the spine (Liu et al. 2017). Tropism

Joint facet tropism was previously defined as the differ-
ence between right and left 3D orientation of the facet joint
(Brailsford 1929). Additionally, spine joint morphology (i.e.
surface geometry) has been also shown to be of clinical rel-
evance while possibly determining degenerative processes
(e.g. osteoarthritis and degenerative spondylolisthesis) or
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1256​5-020-00544​-0) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Benoît Beyer
bbeyer@ulb.ac.be
1
Laboratory of Functional Anatomy, Université Libre de
Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
2
Laboratory of Anatomy, Biomechanics and Organogenesis
(L.A.B.O), Université Libre de Bruxelles, Lennik Street 808,
CP 619, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
3
Virtual Morphology Lab, Museo Nacional de Ciencias
Naturales (CSIC), J. G. Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain
together with facet 3D orientation has been proposed as fac-
tors likely associated with laterality of specific diseases in
both the lumbar spine (Alonso et al. 2017; Gao et al. 2017;
Kalichman et al. 2009) and the cervical spine (Rong et al.
2017b; Xu et al. 2016, 2014). However, considering the
costovertebral joint complexes which are involved in both
respiratory function (Cappello and De Troyer 2002) and tho-
racic spine stability (Brasiliense et al. 2011; Liebsch et al.
2017; Oda et al. 1996; Takeuchi et al. 1999; Watkins et al.
2005), it is questionable how tropism could similarly affect
costal facets, but literature concerning costal facets remains
qualitative (Drake et al. 2010; Moore et al. 2010; Struthers
1874). In addition, costal facet geometry may partly explain
the variability in rib motion during breathing movement
(Beyer et al. 2016, 2015). Finally, since the costal facets are
also related to the orientation of the transverse processes
(Bastir et al. 2014; Standring 2015), measurements of 3D
morphometric features of both vertebrae and costal facets
can contribute to the understanding of functional and clinical
aspects of the rib/vertebra relationship.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Thus, the aim of the present study was (1) to propose a
methodology for determining location and orientation of the
costal facet on the transverse process of the thoracic vertebra
Th1–Th10; (2) to test the hypotheses that tropism exists for
costal facets as well as serial variation in orientation and
shape among different serial thoracic levels and (3) to inves-
tigate/explore the serial variation of the costal facet in the
context of symmetric and asymmetric features of the of the
global vertebrae shape using 3D geometric morphometrics.
Material and methods
3D reconstructions, anatomical landmarks,
and coordinate system
Thorax 3D reconstructions from anonymized CT-scan data
of previous works (Beyer et al. 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017; Cas-
sart et al. 1996) were used in the present study. According
to the Helsinki protocol (Goodyear et al. 2007) and local
Erasme Hospital Ethics Committee (P2005/021), all of the
subjects signed a written consent that allowed the use of
these data for scientific purposes. A total of 140 vertebrae
from Th1 to Th10 from a sample of 14 asymptomatic adults
(including 6 males and 8 females; mean age 29.8 ± 5.1 years
old) were processed. Anatomical landmarks (ALs) were
placed on 3D models to create a vertebra coordinate sys-
tem (VCS) on each thoracic vertebra using a custom-made
software called LhpFuionBox (https​://lhpfu​sionb​ox.org/).
The ALs were located following adaptation of the method
described in previous work (Beyer et al. 2016, 2015), but
Fig. 1  3D reconstruction and anatomical landmarks (type I and type
II landmarks) of a typical vertebra with local coordinate system.
From left to right, inferior, superior and posterior view from left to
right. Vertebra landmarks (V1–V5 from (Beyer et al. 2015). V1: Cen-
tre of inferior border of left pedicle (type II). V2: Centre of inferior
border of right pedicle (type II). V3: Superior junction of lamina
(type II). V4: Posterior and superior apex of spinous process (type I).
V5: Posterior and inferior apex of spinous process (type I). In addi-
tion, four ALs were placed on upper and lower vertebra endplates
13
B. Beyer et al.
details concerning ALs and axes of the coordinate system
are depicted in Fig. 1.
Costal facet landmarks and geometry
A series of points (in average 95 ± 43) were placed on the
left and right costal facet of each thoracic vertebra (see
Fig. 2). Costal facet landmarks (CFLs) were occasionally
undetermined at Th1 (21%), Th9 (4%) or Th10 (43%) on
a single or both sides, and eventually a total of 258 costal
facets were analyzed. For most accurately determining the
location of the costal facet, the combination of both 3D mod-
els and CT slices was analyzed (see Fig. 2). The CFLs were
equally distributed on the entire joint facet and were then
all expressed in the local vertebra coordinate system (VCS).
All feature calculations were performed using in-house
software implemented in the Matlab R 2014b platform
(MathWorks,Natick, Massachusetts). Spatial coordinates
of the ALs and CFLs were processed as follows. Left AL
coordinates were mirrored to the right side (Meskers et al.
1998) through the sagittal plane formed by the x-axis and
y-axis to compare right and left geometrical parameters of
the costal facets.
Spatial orientation and location of the costal facet were
determined as follows. First, the centroid of the CFLs of
each costal facet was computed. Second, a plane cross-
ing the surface centroid was fitted to CFLs by minimizing
orthogonal distance of ALs to the plane using least-squares
regression (see Fig. 2). The root mean square (RMS) dis-
tances from ALs to the plane were calculated to estimate
the out-of-plane deviation of the shape of the costal facet.
(displayed as green balls on the figure). ALs located on the endplates
were used to compute their centroid (type III landmark) that corre-
sponds approximately to the center of the body of the vertebra. The
vertebra coordinate system (VCS) was then created using right hand
rule with origin located at midpoint between V1 and V2; z-axis ori-
ented from V1 to V2 and pointing to the right; x-axis normal to z-axis
pointing to the centroid; y-axis normal to x-axis and z-axis pointing
to the top
Morphometric analysis of the costal facet of the thoracic vertebrae

Fig. 2  Top: CT-scan image

in sagittal plane (left) and 3D
model of a vertebra (right) that
depicts the positioning of the
landmark on the costal facet.
Bottom: example of the process-
ing of plane fitted to the costal
facet landmarks, the vector nor-
mal to the plane with origin at
the centroid (type III landmark)
of the costal facet

In other words: the greater the RMS, the more concave the
costal facet; and the smaller the RMS the flatter the facet.
Third, a 3D vector orthogonal to the best-fitted plane was
computed to describe the 3D orientation of the joint facet.
Finally, orientation of the latter vector was expressed using
inclination angle α (sagittal orientation) and declination
angle β (transverse orientation) as shown in the bottom
of Fig. 3. A positive value for α and β angles corresponds
to superior and anterior orientation, respectively. Facet
tropism was then estimated according to the absolute dif-
ference between left and right values of both inclination
and declination angles. To ensure the reproducibility of
the measurements, 40 costal facets of 20 vertebrae from
2 subjects were measured by a single observer at three
different sessions with more than 24 h apart. Then, the
mean standard deviation and coefficient of variation were
calculated for inclination and declination angle as well as
for the distance from the best-fit plane.

Fig. 3  Illustration of the inclina-

tion a and declination b angles
computation according to the
vertebra coordinate system.
Positive values of α and β cor-
respond to superior and anterior
orientation, respectively

13

Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using Statistica software
(Statistica 8.0© StatSoft. Inc., Tulsa, USA). Normality test
Kolmogorov–Smirnov was performed to evaluate data distri-
bution. All variables followed normal distribution. To evalu-
ate the tropism, the averaged absolute difference between
right and left measurements (i.e. inclination and declina-
tion angles) was tested in a one-sample t test against a fixed
mean value of 0° which corresponds to absolute symmetry.
Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was then used to estimate
the difference between serial thoracic levels (Th1–Th10).
When ANOVA demonstrated a significant effect, Tukey post
hoc test was used to determine the significant differences at
p = 0.05.
3D geometric morphometric and Procrustes analysis
on overall vertebra shape
The above-mentioned set of 16 landmarks (14 virtually
placed and 2 additional ones computed as the centroid of
the costal facet) of the remaining 128 vertebra were used to
determine shape variations of the thoracic vertebra in rela-
tion to the location of the costal facet using the standard 3D
geometric morphometric (GM) analysis (O’Higgins 2000;
Zelditch et al. 2004). The 3D GM approach enables analysis
of 3D shape using homologous vertebra ALs defined above
(Bookstein 1997; Zelditch et al. 2004). In a geometric mor-
phometric shape analysis, all specimens are measured by
the same set of homologue landmarks leading to landmark
configurations that are subject to generalized Procrustes
analysis (GPA) (Gower 1975). GPA removes information of
the landmark coordinates related orientation, position, and
scale. By applying iterative least square-based registrations
using rotation, translation and rescaling, GPA minimizes the
distances among homologous landmarks using of the land-
mark configurations relative their mean shape (consensus)
leading to a set of shape coordinates and a size variable
(centroid size) (Zelditch et al. 2004). After GPA, the shape
coordinates can be analyzed by standardized multivariate
statistical analyses addressing specific hypotheses (Mitteroe-
cker and Gunz 2009). One key advantage of GM over other
morphometric methods is the direct correspondence of each
specimen in shape space with a given landmark configura-
tion, which allows for powerful visualizations of statistical
results (Zelditch et al. 2004).
Geometric morphometrics have been used to investigate
symmetry and asymmetry (Klingenberg 2015). To obtain the
symmetric and asymmetric components of total shape vari-
ation, a method called “reflected relabeling” (Mardia et al.
2000) is applied in which the original landmarks data of the
full vertebrae are superimposed onto its mirrored landmarks.
13
B. Beyer et al.
Principal components analyses (PCA) were then carried out
on the symmetric and on the asymmetric components of
shape data (Mitteroecker and Gunz 2009) to investigate the
seriality (that is, 3D shape change between different serial
levels).
With respect to the symmetric component, we projected
the shape data onto the first two principal components and
explore overall symmetric shape changes related to seri-
ality. With respect to the more subtle, asymmetric part of
shape variation, we performed a second PCA followed by
an ANOVA on the PC scores of the first three PC scores.
This analysis was used to explore a potential systemic trend
in asymmetry along different serial thoracic vertebral levels.
Results
All tables of descriptive statistic are available in supple-
mentary material. Results of the reproducibility analysis
displayed a mean standard deviation of 0.6 mm for the devia-
tion from the best-fit plane, 1.8° for inclination angle and
1.9° for declination angle. Measurements showed a coef-
ficient of variation of 15.6%, 9.0% and 5.6%.
Inclination
Inclination angle (α) increased gradually with increasing
thoracic serial level from Th1 to Th10. In other words, the
sagittal orientation of the costal facet was gradually more
cephalad in the lower thoracic levels (see Fig. 4). The mean
inclination was found to be − 1.4° ± 9.5° at Th1, correspond-
ing to a slightly caudal orientation relative to the vertebra
coordinate system. In more inferior levels, mean inclination
ranged between 1.6° ± 7.1° at Th2 and 38.0° ± 10.0° at Th9.
Analysis of variance demonstrated a significant effect of
serial thoracic level (p < 0.0001). Globally, Tukey post hoc
test showed that adjacent levels did not significantly differ
from each other (p > 0.05).
Declination
The mean declination angle (β) ranged between a minimum
of 27.9° ± 10.4° at Th4 and a maximum of 46.6° ± 12.0° at
Th1 (see Fig. 5). Analysis of variance demonstrated a sig-
nificant effect of thoracic level (p < 0.0001). Globally, Tukey
post hoc test showed also that level 1 differed from levels 2
to 9; and no significant difference (p > 0.05) was observed
for adjacent 3 or 4 levels under the second one.
Deviation from the best‑fit plane
The RMS distance from ALs to the best-fitted plane
(see Fig. 6) ranged between 2.1 ± 0.9 mm at Th8 and
Morphometric analysis of the costal facet of the thoracic vertebrae

Fig. 4  Left: representation of

the results obtained for inclina-
tion angles at each thoracic
level. Right: values obtained
for the inclination angles (in
degree) at Th1–Th10 regard-
less of the side. Note that n = 22
for Th1, n = 28 for Th2 to Th8,
n = 27 for Th9 and n = 13 for
Th10

Fig. 5  Left: values obtained for

declination angles (in degree)
at Th1–Th10. Note that n = 22
for Th1, n = 28 for Th2 to Th8,
n = 27 for Th9 and n = 13 for
Th10. Right: an example of 3D
models of Th1 and Th4 is dis-
played for better visualization of
the change in declination angle
between Th1 and Th4

Fig. 6  Left: out of plane dis-

tances represented by the root
mean square (RMS) distance (in
millimeter) from the landmarks
to the best-fit plane at Th1–
Th10. Note that n = 22 for Th1,
n = 28 for Th2–Th8, n = 27 for
Th9 and n = 13 for Th10. Right:
an example of the more concave
facet at Th2 and flattened costal
facet at Th7 is represented

13

5.2 ± 2.2 mm at Th4. ANOVA showed a significant effect of
thoracic level (p < 0.001). RMS distance displayed a value
of 2.3 ± 1.0 mm at Th1, then a significant increase from Th2
to Th5 and a significant decrease from Th6 to Th10. In other
words, that costal facet is flattened at Th1 and from Th6 to
Th10, and more concave between Th2 and Th5.
Tropism
The mean absolute difference for inclination ranged from
4.9° ± 3.6° at Th4 to 12.2° ± 10.3° at Th10. The mean abso-
lute difference for declination ranged between 5.1° ± 4.2° at
Th7 and 14.3° ± 5.8° at Th10. The absolute difference for
inclination angle differed significantly from zero (p < 0.01)
at all thoracic levels except Th10 (p = 0.052). The absolute
difference for declination angle also significantly differed
from zero (p < 0.01) at each thoracic level. On average,
regardless the thoracic level, the right–left absolute differ-
ence was 6.9° for inclination and 7.7° for declination and
differed significantly from zero (p < 0.001) (Fig. 7).
Symmetry component from GM analysis
Analysis of symmetry enables for characterizing symmetric
shape changes related to seriality. Results displayed a clear
organization on PC1 (51.5% of variance) and PC2 (22.1%
of variance). These results characterized how different tho-
racic vertebrae are from one others and suggest dividing
thoracic vertebrae in three shape groups; upper thorax ver-
tebrae Th1–Th4, mid-thorax vertebrae Th5–Th8, and spe-
cific lower thoracic vertebrae Th9–Th10. The PCA shows a
Fig. 7  Results of the absolute difference (in degree) between right and left inclination angle α (left) and declination angle β (right). Note that
n = 11 for Th1, n = 14 for Th2–Th8, n = 13 for Th9 and n = 7 for Th10
13
B. Beyer et al.
distribution of the upper levels along PC1 and lower levels
along PC2. As usually described, note the specific geometry
results of Th1 with a frontal orientation of the transverse
process (i.e. costal facet), more horizontal spinous process,
and a vertebral body shape less circular. The upper thorax
group (Th1–Th4) corresponds to a gradually increasing
posterior orientation of the transverse process, a gradually
increasing caudal orientation of the spinous process and a
gradual trend towards a more circular shape of the verte-
bral body. Vertebrae of the mid-thorax group (Th5 and Th8)
displayed a maximal caudal orientation and length of the
spinous process, a thicker (taller) and circular vertebral body
as well as more posteriorly and superiorly oriented trans-
verse processes. Note that vertebrae between Th5 and Th8
have a very similar shape. Finally, the lower thorax group
displayed the shortest transverse processes, more horizontal
spinous processes (oriented similarly to those of the upper
thorax group), and the thickest (tallest) and largest vertebral
body (Fig. 8).
Asymmetry component of the GM analysis
These results enables for characterizing the potential asym-
metric component of shape variations along different serial
thoracic levels. Following results on PC scores, no clear
asymmetry components were demonstrated between tho-
racic levels on PC1 and PC2 (p > 0.05). However, a partial
asymmetry component was displayed on PC3 (see Fig. 9)
with a significant influence of the thoracic level (p = 0.0024).
Tukey post hoc test showed the main difference between the
upper thoracic vertebrae Th1–Th3 and the lower remaining
Morphometric analysis of the costal facet of the thoracic vertebrae
Fig. 8  Right: Principal component analysis of the overall shape of the
thoracic vertebra Th1 to Th10. Left: The scatterplot of PC1 (51.5% of
total variance) and PC2 (22.1% of total variance) illustrates shape dis-
tribution between thoracic levels Th1 and Th10. Details are explained
in results section. The warps of the 3D models depict the mean shape
change along PC1 and PC2. The warps along PC1 from Th1 to Th6
ones. This difference globally consists in a greater and more
dorsal orientation of the transverse process on the left side
at Th1–Th3 and Th10 and a similar deviation on the con-
tralateral side at Th4–Th9 (see Fig. 9). This result suggests a
randomly distributed asymmetry over thoracic levels.
The PC 3 asymmetry describes also the relationship
between relative length and relative orientation of the
transverse process in frontal and transverse plane. To bet-
ter visualize this phenomenon, the range of PC3 differences
(i.e. between the maximum value at Th3 and the minimum
value at Th5) was magnified up to 50 times (see Fig. 10).
Results show a relation between the asymmetry, length, and
orientation of the transverse process, which is determined
in the present measurements by the position of the costal
facet. Note that a clear shift of the body of the vertebra was
also associated to the same side of the shortening and more
frontal orientation of the transverse process.
Discussion
The present study proposes an innovative method that ena-
bles both qualitative and quantitative description of the cos-
tal facet of the transverse processes in relation to the shape
of the thoracic vertebra.
Concerning anatomical description, results have shown
the serial change in orientation and position of the costal
facet over the different thoracic levels. These changes in
displayed a gradual posterior orientation of the transverse process, a
gradual caudal orientation of the spinous process and a more squared
vertebral body. Along PC2, from Th6 to Th10, the transverse process
are gradually smaller, the spinous process gradually more horizontal
and short and the vertebral body becomes thicker
orientation of the costal facet are in line with the qualita-
tive description of few anatomy textbooks (Standring 2015;
Moore et al. 2010; Roussos 1995). However, the declina-
tion angles obtained in the present work (Fig. 5) suggest
that costal facet orientation in the transverse plane does not
strictly follow the gradual posterior orientation of the trans-
verse processes among thoracic levels (i.e. declination angle
does not decrease gradually in the lower thoracic levels). In
addition, results concerning the shape showed that costal
facet from Th2 to Th5 are more concave and the related
costotransverse joint may not be considered as an arthrodial
joint (i.e. gliding joints formed by apposition of two planar
surfaces), but rather a trochoid/pivot one (i.e. rotary joint
formed by apposition of a pivot-like surface turning within
a partial ring-like cavity). The present outcomes indicate a
relationship between thoracic level and facet orientation, and
an average absolute difference of 7° between left/right orien-
tations (more than three times the MSD of 1.6° for inclina-
tion angle and 1.9° for declination angle) of the costal facet
for both inclination and declination angle. While the sample
is relatively small, results suggest that tropism occurs not
only at zygapophyseal joint facets (Masharawi et al. 2008)
but also at costotransverse joint facets.
The present results may also be of interests for various
clinical fields. Indeed, such quantitative data may help in
guiding medical procedure such as costotransverse joint
injection in patients with back pain (Deimel et al. 2013;
Yoon et al. 2016) or planning interventions on thorax
13
 B. Beyer et al.

Fig. 9  Results of PC scores from the asymmetry component analysis influenced by thoracic level. PC3 is related to the antero-posterior
along PC1 (top left), PC2 (top right) and PC3 (bottom) for each tho- shift of the transverse processes depicted through the centroid of the
racic level Th1 to Th10. Note that only PC3 scores were significantly costal facet as illustrated with the 3D warps.

Fig. 10  3D warps of Th6 vertebra mean shape along PC3. The magnitude of the shape change represents from 1 time (left part) to 50 times
(right part) the range of PC scores (between − 0.002 and 0.005) on the positive PC3 axis. Details are explained in the results section

13
Morphometric analysis of the costal facet of the thoracic vertebrae
deformities (Little and Adam 2011). Indeed, combining the
present results with other biomechanical parameters of the
costovertebral joints (Beyer et al. 2016, 2015; Lemosse et al.
1998) are of interest for modelling approach of dynamic
interaction between spine and rib cage (Kindig et al. 2015;
Schlager et al. 2018). Physical examination of the thorax is
also commonly used in patients with musculoskeletal causes
of chest pain (Jensen 2001). Literature describes specific
clinical assessment and treatment of the costovertebral and/
or costotransverse joint tenderness and manual therapies
such as joint mobilization procedures as a treatment tool
(Edmondston and Singer 1997; Lee 2015). Considering the
relevance of facet orientation for ensuring the consistency of
motion palpation procedure, the present outcomes may help
in reappraising several technical features (i.e. force orienta-
tion) of these manual methods.
The present quantitative information about joint geometry
may enable reappraising manual approaches (i.e. orienta-
tion of the force produce by the practitioner for evaluating/
mobilizing such joint) for clinical evaluation or treatment
of the thorax.
The GM results of asymmetry components are also in
line with this hypothetic anatomical relationship between the
position of the costal facet and the overall shape of the tho-
racic vertebra (i.e. the lower the thoracic vertebra, the more
posterior and closer to the sagittal midline is the costal facet
following the orientation of the transverse process). Inter-
estingly, magnification of the slight asymmetry observed
in the present sample up to 50 times approximates a shape
alteration that is very similar to the morphology observed in
patients with scoliosis (see Fig. 10). Thus, such asymmetry
in costal facet location and in the body of the vertebra may
represent a relevant signal for determining ontogenetic sco-
liotic change of the thoracic spine. The overall asymmetry
and costal facet tropism could lead to similar compensation
in the anterior joints of the thorax (i.e. costo-chondral and
chondro-sternal joints) since the overall mechanism consists
of close kinematic chains. In a similar way, the effect of
such asymmetry could be related to side-specific degenera-
tive alteration of the thoracic intervertebral disc or at the
costovertebral joints. Although such a relationship between
tropism and degenerative disease has been described previ-
ously in cervical (Rong et al. 2017b, 2017a; Xu et al. 2016,
2014) and lumbar spine (Alonso et al. 2017; Gao et al. 2017;
Kim et al. 2013; Liu et al. 2017; Zhou et al. 2018), these
anatomo-clinical features have to be further investigated for
the thoracic spine.
In addition to the clinical implications, tropism associated
with the variation of the orientation of the transverse pro-
cesses may have also some evolutionary implications. For
example, the more dorsal orientation of the transverse pro-
cessess has been described as a potential plesiomorphy (i.e.,
an evolutionarily primitive anatomical feature) observed in
fossil hominins (Bastir et al. 2017; García-Martínez et al.
2017) but further studies are required to confirm such
hypothesis.
Concerning respiratory mechanics, the costal facet ori-
entation is also suggested to influence the orientation of
the axis of rotation (AOR) of the rib (Saumarez 1986) both
for breathing motion and trunk rotation (Edmondston and
Singer 1997; Lee 2015). Previous work has shown that the
side did not affect orientation of AOR between rib levels
in breathing (Beyer et al. 2016). Concurrently, the spatial
dispersion of AOR orientation increases in lower thoracic
levels during rib rotation (Beyer et al. 2016, 2015) and
authors suggested that specific regional variations of joint
geometry (Moore et al. 2010; Roussos 1995) could explain
axis dispersion. In the present study, the decrease in out-of-
plane distance in the lower thoracic levels (i.e. a costal facet
closer to a plane in the lower levels) is in accordance with
this hypothesis. Indeed, a facet morphology close to a plane
shape may allow slight translatory displacements previously
called “misfit” (Saumarez 1986) that can lead to a change
in both orientation and position of the AOR (de Lange et al.
1990; Woltring et al. 1985).
Limitations
There are several limitations to the present study. First,
the data were obtained from CT imaging techniques, and,
therefore, the shape of the cartilage layer covering facets is
lacking. Although the latter could slightly alter the articular
geometry, the resolution of the CT data obtained 0.5 mm
with 1 mm interspacing still gives the opportunity to esti-
mate shape without being too far from reality. In addition, to
optimize the palpation of the ALs, both 3D models obtained
from manual segmentation and CT slices were used trying
to obtain the valid and reliable results. In addition, the influ-
ence of landmark position may have altered the fitting pro-
cess; however, the reproducibility analysis showed accept-
able results.
Second, the sample analyzed in the present study includes
small age range and, therefore, results should be interpreted
with caution in older samples since degenerative changes
can alter joint surfaces geometry. However, considering that
the subjects were randomly selected, one might expect that
the dispersion of results obtained in the present study repre-
sents a substantial basis for morphometric consideration of
the costal facet. Furthermore, quantitative results obtained
remain in line with anatomic descriptions found in literature
(Moore et al. 2010; Roussos 1995). Finally, previous studies
related to thoracic vertebrae morphometric analysis reported
evidence for sexual dimorphism in thoracic vertebrae (Bastir
et al. 2014) and further research should investigate the sex-
ual dimorphism in these costal facets on a larger sample in
relation to tropism.
13

Conclusion
The present study is the first to investigate quantitative
geometry of the costal facet of the transverse processes in
relation to the overall shape of the thoracic vertebra. Our
results demonstrate a solid signal of tropism and asym-
metric feature of the overall vertebra shape that should
be further investigated on a larger sample that include the
analysis of different age groups and sexual dimorphism.
Data obtained related to the change of location, shape,
and orientation of the costal facet between thoracic levels
can be further used for modelling approach and clinical
applications. The proposed method will be used to explore
ontogenetic changes and evolutionary anatomy of the cos-
tal facet in relation to the thorax functional aspects.
Acknowledgements This research is funded by CGL2015-63648-P
(Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain). We thank all the
members of the Virtual morphology Lab, and especially Nicole Torres
and Daniel Garcia-Martinez for their help with the GM software and
helpful discussions. We also acknowledge the work of the reviewers,
whose comments helped improve this manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Alonso F, Kirkpatrick CM, Jeong W, Fisahn C, Usman S, Rustagi T,
Loukas M, Chapman JR, Oskouian RJ, Tubbs RS (2017) Lum-
bar facet tropism: a comprehensive review. World Neurosurg
102:91–96. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.02.114
Bastir M, García Martínez D, Rios L, Higuero A, Barash A, Martelli
S, García Tabernero A, Estalrrich A, Huguet R, de la Rasilla M,
Rosas A (2017) Three-dimensional morphometrics of thoracic
vertebrae in Neandertals and the fossil evidence from El Sidrón
(Asturias, Northern Spain). J Hum Evol 108:47–61. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhevo​l.2017.03.008
Bastir M, Higuero A, Ríos L, García Martínez D (2014) Three-
dimensional analysis of sexual dimorphism in human thoracic
vertebrae: implications for the respiratory system and spine
morphology. Am J Phys Anthropol 155:513–521. https​://doi.
org/10.1002/ajpa.22604​
Beyer B, Feipel V, Sholukha V, Chèze L, Jan SVS (2017) In-vivo
analysis of sternal angle, sternal and sternocostal kinematics
in supine humans during breathing. J Biomech. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbiom​ech.2017.08.026
Beyer B, Sholukha V, Dugailly PM, Rooze M, Moiseev F, Feipel
V, Van Sint Jan S (2014) In vivo thorax 3D modelling from
costovertebral joint complex kinematics. Clin Biomech Bris-
tol Avon 29:434–438. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.clinb​i omec​
h.2014.01.007
Beyer B, Sholukha V, Salvia P, Rooze M, Feipel V, Van Sint Jan S
(2015) Effect of anatomical landmark perturbation on mean helical
axis parameters of in vivo upper costovertebral joints. J Biomech
48:534–538. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiom​ech.2014.12.035
13
B. Beyer et al.
Beyer B, Van Sint Jan S, Chèze L, Sholukha V, Feipel V (2016)
Relationship between costovertebral joint kinematics and lung
volume in supine humans. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 232:57–65.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.resp.2016.07.003
Bookstein FL (1997) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geom-
etry and biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Brailsford JF (1929) Deformities of the lumbosacral region of the
spine. Br J Surg 16:562–627. https​://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.18001​
66405​
Brasiliense LBC, Lazaro BCR, Reyes PM, Dogan S, Theodore N,
Crawford NR (2011) Biomechanical contribution of the rib
cage to thoracic stability. Spine 36:E1686–1693. https​://doi.
org/10.1097/BRS.0b013​e3182​19ce8​4
Cappello M, De Troyer A (2002) On the respiratory function of
the ribs. J Appl Physiol 92:1642–1646. https​://doi.org/10.1152/
jappl​physi​ol.01053​.2001
Cassart M, Gevenois PA, Estenne M (1996) Rib cage dimensions in
hyperinflated patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmo-
nary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 154:800–805. https​://
doi.org/10.1164/ajrcc​m.154.3.88106​22
de Lange A, Huiskes R, Kauer JM (1990) Effects of data smoothing
on the reconstruction of helical axis parameters in human joint
kinematics. J Biomech Eng 112:107–113
Deimel GW, Hurdle MFB, Murthy N, Cartwright JA, Smith J, Pin-
gree MJ (2013) Sonographically guided costotransverse joint
injections: a computed tomographically controlled cadaveric
feasibility study. J Ultrasound Med 32:2083–2089. https​://doi.
org/10.7863/ultra​.32.12.2083
Drake RL, Vogl W, Mitchell AWM, Gray H, Gray H (2010)
Gray’s anatomy for students. Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier,
Philadelphia
Edmondston SJ, Singer KP (1997) Thoracic spine: anatomical and
biomechanical considerations for manual therapy. Man Ther
2:132–143. https​://doi.org/10.1054/math.1997.0293
Gao T, Lai Q, Zhou S, Liu X, Liu Y, Zhan P, Yu X, Xiao J, Dai M,
Zhang B (2017) Correlation between facet tropism and lumbar
degenerative disease: a retrospective analysis. BMC Musculo-
skelet Disord 18:483. https​://doi.org/10.1186/s1289​1-017-1849-x
García-Martínez D, Bastir M, Huguet R, Estalrrich A, García-Tab-
ernero A, Ríos L, Cunha E, de la Rasilla M, Rosas A (2017)
The costal remains of the El Sidrón Neanderthal site (Asturias,
northern Spain) and their importance for understanding Nean-
derthal thorax morphology. J Hum Evol 111:85–101. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhevo​l.2017.06.003
Goodyear MDE, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T (2007) The declaration of
Helsinki. BMJ 335:624–625. https​://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39339​
.61000​0.BE
Gower JC (1975) Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika
40:33–51. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF022​91478​
Jensen S (2001) Musculoskeletal causes of chest pain. Aust Fam Phys
30:834–839
Kalichman L, Suri P, Guermazi A, Li L, Hunter DJ (2009) Facet ori-
entation and tropism: associations with facet joint osteoarthritis
and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 34:E579–E585. https​
://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013​e3181​aa2ac​b
Kim H, Chun H, Lee H, Kang K, Lee C, Chang B, Yeom JS (2013)
The biomechanical influence of the facet joint orientation and the
facet tropism in the lumbar spine. Spine 13:1301–1308. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.spine​e.2013.06.025
Kindig M, Li Z, Kent R, Subit D (2015) Effect of intercostal muscle
and costovertebral joint material properties on human ribcage
stiffness and kinematics. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed
Eng 18:556–570. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10255​842.2013.82071​8
Klingenberg CP (2015) Analyzing fluctuating asymmetry with geomet-
ric morphometrics: concepts, methods, and applications. Symme-
try 7:843–934. https​://doi.org/10.3390/sym70​20843​
Morphometric analysis of the costal facet of the thoracic vertebrae
Lee DG (2015) Biomechanics of the thorax—research evidence and
clinical expertise. J Man Manip Ther 23:128–138
Lemosse D, Le Rue O, Diop A, Skalli W, Marec P, Lavaste F (1998)
Characterization of the mechanical behaviour parameters of the
costo-vertebral joint. Eur Spine J 7:16–23
Liebsch C, Graf N, Appelt K, Wilke H-J (2017) The rib cage stabilizes
the human thoracic spine: an in vitro study using stepwise reduc-
tion of rib cage structures. PLoS ONE. https​://doi.org/10.1371/
journ​al.pone.01787​33
Little JP, Adam CJ (2011) Effects of surgical joint destabilization
on load sharing between ligamentous structures in the thoracic
spine: a finite element investigation. Clin Biomech Bristol Avon
26:895–903. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinb​iomec​h.2011.05.004
Liu X, Huang Z, Zhou R, Zhu Q, Ji W, Long Y, Wang J (2017) The
effects of orientation of lumbar facet joints on the facet joint con-
tact forces: an in vitro biomechanical study. Spine. https​://doi.
org/10.1097/BRS.00000​00000​00229​0
Mardia KV, Bookstein FL, Moreton IJ (2000) Statistical assessment
of bilateral symmetry of shapes. Biometrika 87:285–300. https​://
doi.org/10.1093/biome​t/87.2.285
Masharawi YM, Peleg S, Albert HB, Dar G, Steingberg N, Medlej B,
Abbas J, Salame K, Mirovski Y, Peled N, Hershkovitz I (2008)
Facet asymmetry in normal vertebral growth: characterization
and etiologic theory of scoliosis. Spine 33:898–902. https​://doi.
org/10.1097/BRS.0b013​e3181​6b1f8​3
Meskers CG, van der Helm FC, Rozendaal LA, Rozing PM (1998)
In vivo estimation of the glenohumeral joint rotation center
from scapular bony landmarks by linear regression. J Biomech
31:93–96
Mitteroecker P, Gunz P (2009) Advances in geometric morpho-
metrics. Evol Biol 36:235–247. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1169​
2-009-9055-x
Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMR (2010) Clinically oriented anatomy.
Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, USA
Oda I, Abumi K, Lü D, Shono Y, Kaneda K (1996) Biomechanical role
of the posterior elements, costovertebral joints, and rib cage in the
stability of the thoracic spine. Spine 21:1423–1429
O’Higgins P (2000) The study of morphological variation in the
hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. J Anat
197:103–120. https​://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19710​
103.x
Rong X, Liu Z, Wang B, Pan X, Liu H (2017a) Relationship between
facet tropism and facet joint degeneration in the sub-axial cervi-
cal spine. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. https​://doi.org/10.1186/
s1289​1-017-1448-x
Rong X, Wang B, Ding C, Deng Y, Chen H, Meng Y, Yan W, Liu
H (2017b) The biomechanical impact of facet tropism on the
intervertebral disc and facet joints in the cervical spine. Spine J.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.spine​e.2017.07.009
Roussos C (1995) The thorax—part a: physiology (in three parts), 2nd
edn. CRC Press, USA
Saumarez RC (1986) An analysis of possible movements of human
upper rib cage. J Appl Physiol 60:678–689
Schlager B, Niemeyer F, Liebsch C, Galbusera F, Boettinger J, Vogele
D, Wilke H-J (2018) Influence of morphology and material prop-
erties on the range of motion of the costovertebral joint—a proba-
bilistic finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed
Eng 21:731–739. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10255​842.2018.15167​
62
Standring S (2015) Gray’s Anatomy: The anatomical basis of clinical
practice. Elsevier Health Sciences
Struthers J (1874) Variations of the vertebrae and ribs in man. J Anat
Physiol 9:17–96
Takeuchi T, Abumi K, Shono Y, Oda I, Kaneda K (1999) Biome-
chanical role of the intervertebral disc and costovertebral joint
in stability of the thoracic spine. A canine model study. Spine
24:1414–1420
Watkins R 4th, Watkins R 3rd, Williams L, Ahlbrand S, Garcia R,
Karamanian A, Sharp L, Vo C, Hedman T (2005) Stability pro-
vided by the sternum and rib cage in the thoracic spine. Spine
30:1283–1286
Woltring HJ, Huiskes R, de Lange A, Veldpaus FE (1985) Finite
centroid and helical axis estimation from noisy landmark meas-
urements in the study of human joint kinematics. J Biomech
18:379–389
Xu C, Ding ZH, Xu YK (2014) Comparison of computed tomog-
raphy and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of
facet tropism and facet arthrosis in degenerative cervical spon-
dylolisthesis. Genet Mol Res GMR 13:4102–4109. https​://doi.
org/10.4238/2014.May.30.5
Xu C, Lin B, Ding Z, Xu Y (2016) Cervical degenerative spondylolis-
thesis: analysis of facet orientation and the severity of cervical
spondylolisthesis. Spine 16:10–15. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.spine​
e.2015.09.035
Yoon KB, Kim SH, Park SJ, Moon JA, Yoon DM (2016) clinical effec-
tiveness of ultrasound-guided costotransverse joint injection in
thoracic back pain patients. Korean J Pain 29:197–201. https​://
doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2016.29.3.197
Zelditch M, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL (2004) Geometric
morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Academic Press, USA
Zhou Q, Teng D, Zhang T, Lei X, Jiang W (2018) Association of facet
tropism and orientation with lumbar disc herniation in young
patients. Neurol Sci 39:841–846. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1007​
2-018-3270-0
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13