Retrospective study classifies sacral hiatus shape in adults, highlighting high-risk anatomical variations for procedural safety.
Background The sacral hiatus is the primary percutaneous access point for caudal epidural blocks and other trans-sacral interventions. Its anatomical variability is a known contributor to procedural failure and complications, yet the prevalence of high-risk morphology in living adults remains incompletely characterized. Purpose This study aimed to classify sacral hiatus morphology using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in a diverse adult population and to estimate the prevalence of anatomical variations that could complicate percutaneous trans-hiatal access. Methods This retrospective study included 258 adults (142 men, 116 women; mean age 47.2 ± 14.6) who underwent pelvic MDCT imaging for various non-traumatic indications. Two independent radiologists assessed multiplanar reconstructions for apex level, canal dimensions, and hiatus shape. Challenging anatomy was defined by pre-specified criteria: apex at/above S3, canal depth < 3 mm, or absent/irregular hiatus. Results Anatomically challenging features were identified in 34.9% (90/258) of the cohort. The V-shape (38.0%) was most common. A high apex (at/above S3) was observed in 28.4% (73/257 patent cases), with no significant sex difference ( p = 0.213). Canal depth was ≤ 3 mm in 31.0% (80/258). Based on composite criteria, 34.9% (90/258) had challenging anatomy. Interobserver agreement for dimensional measurements was robust ( r ≥ 0.893), and for categorical classification, it was substantial ( κ ≥ 0.669). Conclusions MDCT demonstrates a high prevalence of sacral hiatus variants that can complicate trans-hiatal access. Proactive radiologic identification of these features on routine studies provides valuable pre-procedural intelligence, potentially enhancing safety across anesthesia, interventional pain medicine, and orthopedics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nouh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: