Skip to main content
Log in

A clinical morphologic study of the C2 pedicle and isthmus

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This anatomic, radiographic study investigated locational differences in the C2 pedicle and isthmus [pediculoisthmic component (PIC)] and characterized its narrowest section for clinical application in posterior C2 screw fixation.

Methods

Structures surrounding the transverse foramina of 30 dry C2s and 10 C3s were compared morphologically. Spinal CT scans of 32 Chinese adults were subjected to volume rendering and multiplanar reconstruction to identify the narrowest C2 PIC, and correlative parameters were measured and analyzed.

Results

Inferior C2 and C3 structures were morphologically similar. In superior view, the C2 superior facets lay on the transverse foramen and the upper portion between superior and inferior facets was flat (average mediolateral angle, 11.1° ± 2.4°). In inferior view, the posteroinferomedial portion of the C2 transverse foramen displayed a partially tubular structure (average mediolateral angle of projection, 42.6° ± 4.9°). Average height and width were 11.6 and 6.9 mm. The inner medullary cavity was elliptical and the middle site of endosteal diameter was 3.3 ± 1.9 mm. Medial internal cortical bone was significantly thicker than lateral bone (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

The PIC is located between superior and inferior C2 facets. The superior flat area is the isthmus and the inferomedial area connecting the inferior facet and vertebral body is the pedicle. The pedicle is partially tubular and projects posteromedially to the transverse foramen. The narrowest PIC section is the narrowest point of the C2 pedicle. Considering its thin lateral cortical bone, medial and superior pedicle screw placement and preoperative CT reconstruction are recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kuroki H, Rengachary SS, Goel VK et al (2005) Biomechanical comparison of two stabilization techniques of the atlantoaxial joints: transarticular screw fixation versus screw and rod fixation. Neurosurgery 56(S1):151–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Melcher RP, Puttlitz CM, Kleinstueck FS et al (2002) Biomechanical testing of posterior atlantoaxial fixation techniques. Spine 15(27):2435–2440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Magerl F, Seeman PS (1987) Stable posterior fusion of the atlas and axis by transarticular screw fixation. In: Kehr P (ed) Weidner A: Cervical Spine. Springer-Verlag, Vienna, pp 322–327

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Harms J, Melcher RP (2001) Posterior C1–C2 fusion with polyaxial screw and rod fixation. Spine 26:2467–2471

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bloch O, Holly LT, Park J et al (2001) Effect of frameless stereotaxy on the accuracy of C1–C2 transarticular screw placement. J Neurosurg 95:74–79

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goel A, Gupta S (1999) Vertebral artery injury with transarticular screws. J Nurosurg 90:376–377

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Neo M, Matsushita M, Iwashita Y et al (2003) Atlantoaxial transarticular screw fixation for a High-Riding vertebral artery. Spine 28:666–670

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sakamoto T, Neo M, Nakamura T (2004) Transpedicular screw placement evaluated by axial computed tomography of the cervical pedicle. Spine 29:2510–2514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoshida M, Neo M, Fujibayashi S et al (2006) Comparison of the anatomical risk for vertebral artery injury associated with the C2-pedicle screw and atlantoaxial transarticular screw. Spine 31:E513–E517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wright NM (2004) Posterior C2 fixation using bilateral, crossing C2 laminar screws: case series and technical note. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:158–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith ZA, Bistazzoni S, Onibokun A et al (2010) Anatomical considerations for subaxial (C2) pedicle screw placement: a radiographic study with computed tomography in 93 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:176–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Borne GM, Bedou GL, Pinaudeau M (1984) Treatment of pedicular fractures of the axis. A clinical study and screw fixation technique. J Neurosurg 60:88–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yarbrough BE, Hendey GW (1990) Hangman’s fracture resulting from improper seat belt use. South Med J 83:843–845

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ebraheim NA, Fow J, Xu R et al (2001) The Location of the Pedicle and Pars Interarticularis in the Axis. Spine 26:E34–E37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Naderi S, Arman C, Guvencer M et al (2004) An anatomical study of the C-2 pedicle. J Neurosurg 3:303–310

    Google Scholar 

  16. Reinhold M, Bach C, Audigé L et al (2008) Comparison of two novel fluoroscopy-based stereotactic methods for cervical pedicle screw placement and review of the literature. Eur Spine J 17(4):564–575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Reinhold M, Magerl F, Rieger M, Blauth M (2007) Cervical pedicle screw placement: feasibility and accuracy of two new insertion techniques based on morphometric data. Eur Spine J 16(1):47–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ebraheim NA, Xu R, Knight T, Yeasting RA (1997) Morphometric evaluation of lower cervical pedicle and its projection. Spine 22(1):1–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Alosh H, Parker SL, McGirt MJ et al (2010) Preoperative radiographic factors and surgeon experience are associated with cortical breach of C2 pedicle screws. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:9–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sciubba DM, Noggle JC, Vellimana AK et al (2009) Radiographic and clinical evaluation of free-hand placement of C-2 pedicle screws. J Neurosurg (S) 11:15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fuji T, Oda T, Kato Y, Fujita S, Tanaka M (2000) Accuracy of atlantoaxial transarticular screw insertion. Spine 25:1760–1764

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Paramore CG, Dickman CA, Sonntag VK (1996) The anatomical suitability of the C1–2 complex for transarticular screw fixation. J Neurosurg 85:221–224

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mandel IM, Kambach BJ, Petersilge CA et al (2000) Morphologic considerations of C2 isthmus dimensions for the placement of transarticular screws. Spine 25(12):1542–1547

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kuroki H, Rengachary SS, Goel VK et al (2005) Biomechanical comparison of two stabilization techniques of the atlantoaxial joints: transarticular screw fixation versus screw and rod fixation. Neurosurgery 56(S1):151–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Misenhimer GR, Peek RD, Wiltse LL et al (1989) Anatomic analysis of pedicle cortical and cancellous diameter as related to screw size. Spine 14:367–372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feng Yuan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yuan, F., Yang, HL., Guo, KJ. et al. A clinical morphologic study of the C2 pedicle and isthmus. Eur Spine J 22, 39–45 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2417-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2417-6

Keywords

Navigation