Computer tomography-based morphometric analysis of the cervical spine pedicles C3–C7
Our aim was to examine the specific dimensions of cervical pedicles in a large Caucasian cohort on high dissolving CT scans.
A retrospective analysis of 100 cervical spine CT scans with a maximum slice thickness of 1 mm in axial, sagittal, and coronal reconstructions was performed. The pedicle axial length (PAL), inner and outer pedicle diameter (IPD/OPD), pedicle sagittal and transverse angle (PSA/PTA), pedicle height (PH), pedicle width (PW), and the cortical thickness (COT) at different margins were measured by two independent observers. A total of 1000 cervical pedicles (C3–C7) of 52 male (age 58 ± 17.47 years, height 177.97 ± 8.17 cm) and 48 female patients (age 57 ± 19.07 years, height 165.50 ± 7.44) were measured.
Cortical thickness at the medial limitation of the pedicle was 1.77 ± 0.43 and 0.90 ± 0.36 mm at the lateral limitation (p < 0.001). The mean PAL ranged from 30.5 mm at C4 level to 35.3 mm at C6 level. PW and PAL were smaller in the female than in the male patients. The smallest values for PW were at C3 with 29.17% of males and 52.88% of females < 4.5 mm. The percentage of patients with PW < 4.5 mm decreased caudally with less than 10% of pedicles below C4 in male participants and below C6 in female participants. Mean PTA ranged from 34.6° to 48.02° peaking at C4 and C5 levels. No gender-specific difference was found for PTA and PSA (p ≥ 0.13). IPD and OPD were larger in males (p < 0.001), and body height correlated significantly with IPW (p ≤ 0.019) and OPW (p ≤ 0.003). The interrater reliability was very good for PW, PH, and IPD (0.84–0.86), good for OPD, PTA, and PSA (0.64–0.79), and moderate for PAL (0.54) and cortical thickness (0.44).
Peculiarities of pedicle dimension of this central European cohort are comparable to morphometric studies in other ethnicities. Preoperative planning before cervical pedicle screw insertion on fine-cut CT scans demonstrates good interrater reliability for all important dimensions and angulations. More than half of female patients and almost a third of male patients had a PW of less than 4.5 mm at C3 level. Even though this percentage decreases caudally, pedicle screws might not be safe to insert in a noteworthy percentage of patients.
KeywordsSpine Cervical Pedicle Morphology
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The local Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty Cologne approved the investigation (17-063)
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 3.Chanplakorn P, Kraiwattanapong C, Aroonjarattham K, Leelapattana P, Keorochana G, Jaovisidha S, Wajanavisit W (2014) Morphometric evaluation of subaxial cervical spine using multi-detector computerized tomography (MD-CT) scan: the consideration for cervical pedicle screws fixation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:125. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-125 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 4.Chazono M, Tanaka T, Kumagae Y, Sai T, Marumo K (2012) Ethnic differences in pedicle and bony spinal canal dimensions calculated from computed tomography of the cervical spine: a review of the English-language literature. Eur Spine J 21:1451–1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2295-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Lee DH, Lee SW, Kang SJ, Hwang CJ, Kim NH, Bae JY, Kim YT, Lee CS, Daniel Riew K (2011) Optimal entry points and trajectories for cervical pedicle screw placement into subaxial cervical vertebrae. Eur Spine J 20:905–911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1655-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Luther N, Iorgulescu JB, Geannette C, Gebhard H, Saleh T, Tsiouris AJ, Hartl R (2015) Comparison of navigated versus non-navigated pedicle screw placement in 260 patients and 1434 screws: screw accuracy, screw size, and the complexity of surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:E298–E303. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828af33e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Mahesh B, Upendra B, Vijay S, Arun K, Srinivasa R (2017) Perforations and angulations of 324 cervical medial cortical pedicle screws: a possible guide to avoid lateral perforations with use of pedicle screws in lower cervical spine. Spine J 17:457–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.11.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Imagama S, Kanemura T, Kamiya M, Yanase M, Ito K, Machino M, Yoshida G, Ishikawa Y, Matsuyama Y, Ishiguro N, Kato F (2012) Complications of cervical pedicle screw fixation for nontraumatic lesions: a multicenter study of 84 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 16:238–247. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.11.SPINE11102 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Onibokun A, Khoo LT, Bistazzoni S, Chen NF, Sassi M (2009) Anatomical considerations for cervical pedicle screw insertion: the use of multiplanar computerized tomography measurements in 122 consecutive clinical cases. Spine J 9:729–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.04.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Uehara M, Takahashi J, Ikegami S, Mukaiyama K, Kuraishi S, Shimizu M, Futatsugi T, Ogihara N, Hashidate H, Hirabayashi H, Kato H (2014) Screw perforation features in 129 consecutive patients performed computer-guided cervical pedicle screw insertion. Eur Spine J 23:2189–2195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3502-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Yusof MI, Ming LK, Abdullah MS, Yusof AH (2006) Computerized tomographic measurement of the cervical pedicles diameter in a Malaysian population and the feasibility for transpedicular fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:E221–E224. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000210263.87578.65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar