Sacral Dimple-the Role and Yield of Imaging

Mini Review

Austin Neurosurg Open Access. 2014;1(4): 1016.

Sacral Dimple–the Role and Yield of Imaging

Sy C1, Nyame V1 and Haridas A1,2*

1Department of Neurological Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, USA

2Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Children's Hospital of Michigan, USA

*Corresponding author: Haridas A, Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Children's Hospital of Michigan, 3901 Beaubien Street, Detroit, MI 48201, USA

Received: May 20, 2014; Accepted: June 05, 2014; Published: June 09, 2014


The finding of sacral dimples in newborns has been considered as a cutaneous sign for underlying Occult Spinal Dysraphism (OSD). As such, even isolated findings are worked up with a screening ultrasound and often a Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) of the lumbar spine. This is an effort to avoid missing a detrimental malformation and to allow for early treatment. These modalities are not without risks, especially as newborns must often undergo anesthesia for MRI procedures. When sacral dimples are found without other cutaneous signs/lesions the probability that an OSD exists is low and falsepositive ultrasound findings can lead to unneeded health risks. A screening ultrasound should only be performed when sacral dimples are found with other cutaneous signs, especially those that have demonstrated higher associations with underlying OSD.

Keywords: Sacral dimple; Sacral pit; Ultrasound; Magnetic resonance imaging; Occult spinal dysraphism; Newborn screening


Occult Spinal Dysraphism (OSD); Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)


Sacral dimples are one of the commonest spinal cutaneous abnormalities seen in the neonatal period. These dimples or "pits" result from incomplete closure of the neural tube during embryogenesis. The relationship of these findings with defects that can cause subsequent neurological sequelae and disability has created an atmosphere of defensive practitioners. Of the different cutaneous signs that correlate with underlying OSD, a recent study involving 1000 newborns found that sacral dimples were the most common finding at 12.8% (more common than myelomeningoceles: 0.5%, acrochordons: 0.1%, and dermoid cysts: 0.1%) [1].

Having a low threshold for further neurological workup is not without reason. A recent report demonstrates that issues can occur and manifest even in adulthood-including motor weakness, incontinence, and chronic pain [2]. As such, early imaging has extended beyond the traditional ultrasound in an effort to avoid overlooking an underlying dysraphism. This surge in pursuing additional imaging is emboldened by associated findings which include hair tufts, family history, neurological signs, skin discoloration/depigmentation, skin folds, deviated gluteal clefts, and soft tissue masses to name a few. Ultrasound screening has proven to be cheap, non-invasive and portable. It is the case, however, that false positive ultrasound findings may then subject infants to MRIs-a modality that is time-consuming,expensive, and includes anesthesia risks (most troubling being hypoxemia) [3]. In this paper, we wish to highlight the relatively low diagnostic yield of imaging in regards to sacral dimples and encourage vigilant clinical decision-making instead of further tests that are likely to incur unneeded costs as well as avoidable patient risks.

Low-Yield of Imaging with Isolated Sacral Dimples

In one study of 943 patients referred for cutaneous stigmata, 68% (638 patients) had a sacral dimple. Of these 638 patients, the resultant ultrasound was normal in 600 patients (where one patient had fatty filum on MRI requiring surgery), and 38 patients exhibited abnormal ultrasounds (with 4 undergoing subsequent surgical repair) [4]. Based on this study by Chern et al., approximately 5% of patientswith cutaneous stigmata will have abnormal lumbar ultrasonography and surgery was only required in less than 1% of infants. In another study of 216 patients who were subjected to ultrasound imaging, the authors found that having multiple indications, as opposed to findings of isolated sacral dimples were, only at that point, six times more likely to yield the diagnosis of spinal dysraphism [5]. Other signs, in contrast, may warrant further investigation to avoid detrimental outcomes as recently outlined in a recent case of midline hypertrichosis in a newborn [6]. These findings are supported by other studies that propose further imaging only when two or more cutaneous lesions are found [7,8]. This questions the value of imaging in detecting closed defects such as spinal lipoma, cord tethering, or fatty filum in the presence of only a sacral dimple without any other cutaneous stigmata. Clinical (Figure 1), as well as ultrasound (Figure 2) findings from a typical patient are provided.

Citation: Sy C, Nyame V and Haridas A. Sacral Dimple–the Role and Yield of Imaging. Austin Neurosurg Open Access. 2014;1(4): 1016.