Cargando…

Comparison of Three Different Options for C7 Posterior Vertebral Anchor in the Indian Population—Lateral Mass, Pedicle, and Lamina: A Computed Tomography-Based Morphometric Analysis

STUDY DESIGN: Radiological cohort study. PURPOSE: The options of posteriorly stabilizing C7 vertebra include using lateral mass, pedicle or lamina, as bony anchors. The current study is a computed tomography (CT)-based morphometric analysis of C7 vertebra of 100 Indian patients and discusses the fea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Viswanathan, Vibhu Krishnan, Subramanian, Surabhi, Viswanathan, Sushma
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6068419/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30060383
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.12.4.726
_version_ 1783343266174861312
author Viswanathan, Vibhu Krishnan
Subramanian, Surabhi
Viswanathan, Sushma
author_facet Viswanathan, Vibhu Krishnan
Subramanian, Surabhi
Viswanathan, Sushma
author_sort Viswanathan, Vibhu Krishnan
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Radiological cohort study. PURPOSE: The options of posteriorly stabilizing C7 vertebra include using lateral mass, pedicle or lamina, as bony anchors. The current study is a computed tomography (CT)-based morphometric analysis of C7 vertebra of 100 Indian patients and discusses the feasibility of these different techniques. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: C7 is a peculiar vertebra with unique anatomy, which poses challenges for each of these fixation modalities. There are no reports available in the literature, which discuss and compare the feasibility of diverse posterior C7 fixation techniques in Indian population. METHODS: We included 100 consecutive cervical spine CT scans of Indian patients performed between July 2016 and September 2016. We excluded CT scans with any significant congenital anomaly or other pathological lesions of C7 and patients with non-Indian ethnicity. Regarding screw placement, we assessed and studied various dimensions of the C7 lateral mass, pedicles, and laminae in relevant sections. RESULTS: The mean age of our patients was 49.5±16.1 years. We included 56 male and 44 female patients. The mean anteroposterior and mediolateral dimensions of the lateral mass were 11.38±1.76 and 12.91±1.82 mm, respectively. The mean length of the lateral mass screw (Magerl technique) was 12.17±1.9 mm; 92% of patients could accommodate a lateral mass screw at least 10-mm long (unicortical), whereas 48% could accommodate a screw (unicortical) longer than 12 mm. Foramen transversarium was found in 30.5% of lateral masses. The mean outer and inner cortical widths of the pedicles were 6.5±0.71 mm and 3.72±0.61 mm, respectively. Approximately 58% of pedicles could accommodate 3.5-mm screws (based on the inner cortical pedicle width). The outer cortical and inner cortical widths of the laminae were 6.21±1.2 mm and 3.23±0.9 mm, respectively. Subsequently, 37% of the laminae could accommodate 3.5-mm screws. The mean angle of intralaminar screw trajectory was 50.7°±5.1°, and the mean length of the intralaminar screw was 32.6±3.05 mm. In addition, 96.4% and 60.7% of male patients could accommodate lateral mass screws longer than 10 mm and 12 mm, respectively. However, only 86.4% and 31.8% of female patients could accommodate 10- and 12-mm long lateral mass screws, respectively. Furthermore, 75% of male patients and 36% of female patients had pedicles that could accommodate 3.5-mm diameter screws, and 48.2% of male patients had laminae that could accommodate 3.5-mm screws; however, only 22.7% of female patients could accommodate 3.5-mm laminar screws. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our CT-guided morphometric analysis, 92% and 48% of Indian patients could accommodate at least 10- and 12-mm long lateral mass screws, and 58% of pedicles and 37% of laminae could accommodate 3.5-mm screws. Thus, lateral mass screws (between 10- and 12-mm long) seem to be the safest feasible option for C7 fixation. In case of the need for an alternative mode of stabilization (pedicle or intralaminar screw), particularly in female patients, careful preoperative planning with a CT scan is of utmost importance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6068419
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Korean Society of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60684192018-08-08 Comparison of Three Different Options for C7 Posterior Vertebral Anchor in the Indian Population—Lateral Mass, Pedicle, and Lamina: A Computed Tomography-Based Morphometric Analysis Viswanathan, Vibhu Krishnan Subramanian, Surabhi Viswanathan, Sushma Asian Spine J Clinical Study STUDY DESIGN: Radiological cohort study. PURPOSE: The options of posteriorly stabilizing C7 vertebra include using lateral mass, pedicle or lamina, as bony anchors. The current study is a computed tomography (CT)-based morphometric analysis of C7 vertebra of 100 Indian patients and discusses the feasibility of these different techniques. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: C7 is a peculiar vertebra with unique anatomy, which poses challenges for each of these fixation modalities. There are no reports available in the literature, which discuss and compare the feasibility of diverse posterior C7 fixation techniques in Indian population. METHODS: We included 100 consecutive cervical spine CT scans of Indian patients performed between July 2016 and September 2016. We excluded CT scans with any significant congenital anomaly or other pathological lesions of C7 and patients with non-Indian ethnicity. Regarding screw placement, we assessed and studied various dimensions of the C7 lateral mass, pedicles, and laminae in relevant sections. RESULTS: The mean age of our patients was 49.5±16.1 years. We included 56 male and 44 female patients. The mean anteroposterior and mediolateral dimensions of the lateral mass were 11.38±1.76 and 12.91±1.82 mm, respectively. The mean length of the lateral mass screw (Magerl technique) was 12.17±1.9 mm; 92% of patients could accommodate a lateral mass screw at least 10-mm long (unicortical), whereas 48% could accommodate a screw (unicortical) longer than 12 mm. Foramen transversarium was found in 30.5% of lateral masses. The mean outer and inner cortical widths of the pedicles were 6.5±0.71 mm and 3.72±0.61 mm, respectively. Approximately 58% of pedicles could accommodate 3.5-mm screws (based on the inner cortical pedicle width). The outer cortical and inner cortical widths of the laminae were 6.21±1.2 mm and 3.23±0.9 mm, respectively. Subsequently, 37% of the laminae could accommodate 3.5-mm screws. The mean angle of intralaminar screw trajectory was 50.7°±5.1°, and the mean length of the intralaminar screw was 32.6±3.05 mm. In addition, 96.4% and 60.7% of male patients could accommodate lateral mass screws longer than 10 mm and 12 mm, respectively. However, only 86.4% and 31.8% of female patients could accommodate 10- and 12-mm long lateral mass screws, respectively. Furthermore, 75% of male patients and 36% of female patients had pedicles that could accommodate 3.5-mm diameter screws, and 48.2% of male patients had laminae that could accommodate 3.5-mm screws; however, only 22.7% of female patients could accommodate 3.5-mm laminar screws. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our CT-guided morphometric analysis, 92% and 48% of Indian patients could accommodate at least 10- and 12-mm long lateral mass screws, and 58% of pedicles and 37% of laminae could accommodate 3.5-mm screws. Thus, lateral mass screws (between 10- and 12-mm long) seem to be the safest feasible option for C7 fixation. In case of the need for an alternative mode of stabilization (pedicle or intralaminar screw), particularly in female patients, careful preoperative planning with a CT scan is of utmost importance. Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2018-08 2018-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6068419/ /pubmed/30060383 http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.12.4.726 Text en Copyright © 2018 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Viswanathan, Vibhu Krishnan
Subramanian, Surabhi
Viswanathan, Sushma
Comparison of Three Different Options for C7 Posterior Vertebral Anchor in the Indian Population—Lateral Mass, Pedicle, and Lamina: A Computed Tomography-Based Morphometric Analysis
title Comparison of Three Different Options for C7 Posterior Vertebral Anchor in the Indian Population—Lateral Mass, Pedicle, and Lamina: A Computed Tomography-Based Morphometric Analysis
title_full Comparison of Three Different Options for C7 Posterior Vertebral Anchor in the Indian Population—Lateral Mass, Pedicle, and Lamina: A Computed Tomography-Based Morphometric Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of Three Different Options for C7 Posterior Vertebral Anchor in the Indian Population—Lateral Mass, Pedicle, and Lamina: A Computed Tomography-Based Morphometric Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Three Different Options for C7 Posterior Vertebral Anchor in the Indian Population—Lateral Mass, Pedicle, and Lamina: A Computed Tomography-Based Morphometric Analysis
title_short Comparison of Three Different Options for C7 Posterior Vertebral Anchor in the Indian Population—Lateral Mass, Pedicle, and Lamina: A Computed Tomography-Based Morphometric Analysis
title_sort comparison of three different options for c7 posterior vertebral anchor in the indian population—lateral mass, pedicle, and lamina: a computed tomography-based morphometric analysis
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6068419/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30060383
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.12.4.726
work_keys_str_mv AT viswanathanvibhukrishnan comparisonofthreedifferentoptionsforc7posteriorvertebralanchorintheindianpopulationlateralmasspedicleandlaminaacomputedtomographybasedmorphometricanalysis
AT subramaniansurabhi comparisonofthreedifferentoptionsforc7posteriorvertebralanchorintheindianpopulationlateralmasspedicleandlaminaacomputedtomographybasedmorphometricanalysis
AT viswanathansushma comparisonofthreedifferentoptionsforc7posteriorvertebralanchorintheindianpopulationlateralmasspedicleandlaminaacomputedtomographybasedmorphometricanalysis