Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Dec;57(1):2528977.
doi: 10.1080/07853890.2025.2528977. Epub 2025 Jul 7.

Evaluated anatomical variations in children by sacrococcygeal ultrasonography as a new tool: a report from a Chinese tertiary hospital

Shan Wang  1 , Lei Hu  2 , Xin-Lu Yang  1 , Ting-Ting Yan  1 , Chun-Lin Xie  1 , Sheng Wang  1 , Ying Liu  3 , Xiao-Qing Chai  1 , Ling Zhou  1 , Wei Gao  1
Affiliations

Evaluated anatomical variations in children by sacrococcygeal ultrasonography as a new tool: a report from a Chinese tertiary hospital

Shan Wang et al. Ann Med. 2025 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: Anatomical variations in the sacrococcygeal region can lead to complications such as accidental dural puncture during caudal block. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of sacrococcygeal anatomical variations using ultrasonography and to evaluate the necessity of ultrasound guidance in sacral block procedures.

Methods: Ultrasound findings of sacrococcygeal anatomy were validated against magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A detailed ultrasound protocol was subsequently applied to assess sacrococcygeal anatomy in pediatric patients.

Results: Ultrasound and MRI demonstrated strong concordance in evaluating sacrococcygeal anatomy. The most common anatomical variation was a low-lying dural sac (16.2%), followed by incomplete sacral cornua (4.9%). The dural sac termination level was inversely associated with age (odds ratio: 0.996, 95% CI: 0.945-0.987; p < 0.001). Other variations included abnormal coccyx curvature (4.3%), sacral skewness (3.8%), and sacral hiatus atresia (1.1%), with no pathological abnormalities detected.

Conclusion: Comprehensive ultrasound scanning effectively identifies anatomical variations in the sacrococcygeal region of pediatric patients, which are highly prevalent. Routine preprocedural ultrasound examinations and ultrasound guidance during caudal block procedures are strongly recommended to enhance safety and accuracy.

Keywords: Caudal block; magnetic resonance imaging; sacrococcygeal anatomical variations; ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Location and movement of the ultrasound probe for sacral imaging. (A) Schematic diagram of short-axis scanning: the probe is placed horizontally at the sacral hiatus and slid continuously from S5 to L5 along the arrow. (B) Schematic of longitudinal scanning: the probe is rotated 90 degrees and moved cephalad from S5 to S1. (C) Schematic of paracentral scanning: the probe is positioned 0.5–1 cm to the left/right of the midline and tilted towards the midline for paracentral imaging. L5, the fifth lumbar vertebra; S1, the first sacral vertebra; S5, the fifth sacral vertebra.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Representative MRI and ultrasound images. Normal spinal MRI (A) and ultrasonography (B–D) in a 2-year-old child. The termination of the dural sac is marked by a red arrow. S1, the first sacral vertebra; S2, the second sacral vertebra; S3, the third sacral vertebra; S4, the fourth sacral vertebra; S5, the fifth sacral vertebra.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Ultrasound images showing measurement indicators. (A) Transverse plane: a, distance between skin and sacral cornu; b, height of sacral cornu; c, distance between bilateral sacral cornua; d, diameter of the sacral canal at the apex of the hiatus. (B) Longitudinal plane: e, angle of the sacral hiatus. S3, the third sacral vertebra; S4, the fourth sacral vertebra; S5, the fifth sacral vertebra.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Bland-Altman plots demonstrating agreement between MRI and ultrasound. (A) Diameter of the sacral canal. (B) Optimal angle of the sacral hiatus.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Wiegele M, Marhofer P, Lönnqvist P-A.. Caudal epidural blocks in paediatric patients: a review and practical considerations. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(4):509–517. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.11.030. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tian Y, Li S, Yang F, et al. The median effective concentration of ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided caudal block in children: a dose-finding study. J Anesth. 2024;38(2):179–184. doi: 10.1007/s00540-023-03294-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dalens B, Hasnaoui A.. Caudal anesthesia in pediatric surgery: success rate and adverse effects in 750 consecutive patients. Anesth Analg. 1989;68(2):83–89. (Print):doi: 10.1213/00000539-198902000-00002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee HJ, Min JY, Kim HI, et al. Measuring the depth of the caudal epidural space to prevent dural sac puncture during caudal block in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2017;27(5):540–544. doi: 10.1111/pan.13083. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Suresh S, Long J, Birmingham PK, et al. Are caudal blocks for pain control safe in children? An analysis of 18,650 caudal blocks from the pediatric regional anesthesia network (PRAN) database. Anesth Analg. 2015;120(1):151–156. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000446. - DOI - PubMed

Supplementary concepts

LinkOut - more resources