Advertisement

Surgical Highways to the Craniovertebral Junction: Is It Time for a Reappraisal?

  • Giuseppe Roberto Giammalva
  • Domenico Gerardo Iacopino
  • Francesca Graziano
  • Antonella Giugno
  • Carlo Gulì
  • Luigi Basile
  • Massimiliano Visocchi
  • Rosario Maugeri
Chapter
Part of the Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement book series (NEUROCHIRURGICA, volume 125)

Abstract

Background: The craniovertebral junction (CVJ) can be affected by a variety of congenital or acquired anomalies. Because of its complexity, a careful evaluation of bones and ligamentous structures in all three planes is required. This can be achieved by studying the CVJ in terms of several anatomical and radiological lines that have been visualized to facilitate understanding of its surgical anatomy. In this study we aimed to review the state-of-the art craniometric CVJ lines and approaches.

Methods: In December 2016 a PubMed search was performed, including the search terms ‘CVJ surgical approach/line’, ‘cervical approach’, ‘craniometric measurement’, ‘CVJ anatomy’ and ‘ventral/dorsal/far-lateral approach’. Anatomical and radiological lines and angles evaluated on traditional radiography, computed tomography (CT) scanning or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the axial/sagittal/coronal views were included and described.

Results: Several measurements and radiological landmarks were included to evaluate the anatomy of the CVJ. They were fully described and categorized on the basis of the anatomical plan and the surgical or diagnostic purpose they are used for.

Conclusion: Among the numerous radiological measurements described, it has been shown that McRae’s line, Chamberlain’s line, McGregor’s line, the Redlund-Johnell method and Ranawat’s line are the most widely used and reliable ones for evaluating skull base craniometry. Secondly, the hard palate line (HPL), nasoaxial line (NAxL) and palatine–inferior dental arch line (PIA) are used to preoperatively assess the ventral endonasal or transoral surgical approaches. Thirdly, the C7 slope has been demonstrated as a reliable predictor of occipitocervical and spinopelvic alignment in CVJ fusion.

Keywords

Cranio-vertebral junction Surgical approach Radiological lines Skull base craniometry Surgical angles 

References

  1. 1.
    Lopez AJ, Scheer JK, Leibl KE, Smith ZA, Dlouhy BJ, Dahdaleh NS. Anatomy and biomechanics of the craniovertebral junction. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;38(4):E2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smoker WRK. Craniovertebral junction: normal anatomy, craniometry and congenital anomalies. Radiographics. 1994;14(2):255–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kansal R, Sharma A, Kukreja S. An anterior high cervical retropharyngeal approach for C1–C2 intrafacetal fusion and transarticular screw insertion. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(12):1705–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akar A, Civelek E, Cansever T, Aydemir F, Altinors MN. The relationship of the vertebral artery with anatomical landmarks in the posterior craniovertebral junction of fresh human cadavers in the Turkish population. Turk Neurosurg. 2016;26(3):389–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cavallo LM, Cappabianca P, Messina A, Esposito F, Stella L, de Divitiis E, Tschabitscher M. The extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the clivus and cranio-vertebral junction: anatomical study. Childs Nerv Syst. 2007;23(6):665–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalthur SG, Padmashali S, Gupta C, Dsouza AS. Anatomic study of the occipital condyle and its surgical implications in transcondylar approach. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2014;5(2):71–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kwong Y, Rao N, Latief K. Craniometric measurements in the assessment of craniovertebral settling: are they still relevant in the age of cross-sectional imaging? Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):W421–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patel AJ, Gressot LV, Cherian J, Desai SK, Jea A. Far lateral paracondylar versus transcondylar approach in the pediatric age group: CT morphometric analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(12):2194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jain N, Verma R, Garga UC, Baruah BP, Jain SK, Bhaskar SN. CT and MR imaging of odontoid abnormalities: a pictorial review. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2019;26(1):108–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu JK, Patel J, Goldstein IM, Eloy JA. Endoscopic endonasal transclival transodontoid approach for ventral decompression of the craniovertebral junction: operative technique and nuances. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;38(4):E17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Refai D, Shin JH, Iannotti C, Benzel EC. Dorsal approaches to intradural extramedullary tumors of the craniovertebral junction. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2010;1(1):49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cronin CG, Lohan DG, Mhuircheartigh JN, Meehan CP, Murphy J, Roche C. CT evaluation of Chamberlain’s, McGregor’s, and McRae’s skull-base lines. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(1):64–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ladner TR, Dewan MC, Day MA, Shannon CN, Tomycz L, Tulipan N, Wellons JC III. Posterior odontoid process angulation in pediatric Chiari I malformation: an MRI morphometric external. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015;16(2):138–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee HJ, Hong JT, Kim IS, Kwon JY, Lee SW. Analysis of measurement accuracy for craniovertebral junction pathology: most reliable method for cephalometric analysis. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2013;54(4):275–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tassanawipas A, Mokkhavesa S, Chatchavong S, Worawittayawong P. Magnetic resonance imaging study of the craniocervical junction. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015;13(3):228–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Batista UC, Joaquim AF, Fernandes YB, Mathias RN, Ghizoni E, Tedeschi H. Computed tomography evaluation of the normal craniocervical junction craniometry in 100 asymptomatic patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;38(4):E5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shoda N, Takeshita K, Seichi A, Akune T, Nakajima S, Anamizu Y, Miyashita M, Nakamura K. Measurement of occipitocervical angle. Spine (Phila PA 1976). 2004;29(10):E204–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mehrotra A, Srivastava A, Sahu RN, Kumar R. Role of effective canal diameter in assessing the pre-operative and the post-operative status of patients with bony cranio-vertebral anomalies. Asian J Neurosurg. 2016;11(4):396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xu S, Gong R. Clivodens angle: a new diagnostic method for basilar invagination at computed tomography. Spine (Phila PA 1976). 2016;41(17):1365–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Botelho RV, Ferreira ED. Angular craniometry in craniocervical junction malformation. Neurosurg Rev. 2013;36(4):603–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    La Corte E, Aldana PR, Ferroli P, Greenfield JP, Härtl R, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. The rhinopalatine line as a reliable predictor of the inferior extent of endonasal odontoidectomies. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;38(4):E16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Almeida JR, Zanation AM, Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Prevedello DM, Gardner PA, Kassam A. Defining the nasopalatine line: the limit for endonasal surgery of the spine. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(2):239–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Visocchi M, Pappalardo G, Pileggi M, Signorelli F, Paludetti G, La Rocca G. Experimental endoscopic angular domains of transnasal and transoral routes to the craniovertebral junction. Spine (Phila PA 1976). 2016;41(8):669–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aldana PR, Naseri I, La Corte E. The naso-axial line: a new method of accurately predicting the inferior limit of the endoscopic endonasal approach to the craniovertebral junction. Neurosurgery. 2012;71(2 Suppl Operative):308–14.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Núñez-Pereira S, Hitzl W, Bullmann V, Meier O, Koller H. Sagittal balance of the cervical spine: an analysis of occipitocervical and spinopelvic interdependence, with C-7 slope as a marker of cervical and spinopelvic alignment. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(1):16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Visocchi M, Di Martino A, Maugeri R, González Valcárcel I, Grasso V, Paludetti G. Videoassisted anterior surgical approaches to the craniocervical junction: rationale and clinical results. Eur J Spine. 2015;24(12):2713–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Visocchi M, La Rocca G, Della Pepa GM, Stigliano E, Costantini A, Di Nardo F, Maira G. Anterior video-assisted approach to the craniovertebral junction: transnasal or transoral? A cadaver study. Acta Neurochir. 2014;156(2):285–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Matsunaga S, Onishi T, Sakou T. Significance of occipitoaxial angle in subaxial lesion after occipitocervical fusion. Spine (Phila PA 1976). 2011;26(2):161–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe Roberto Giammalva
    • 1
  • Domenico Gerardo Iacopino
    • 1
  • Francesca Graziano
    • 1
  • Antonella Giugno
    • 1
  • Carlo Gulì
    • 1
  • Luigi Basile
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Visocchi
    • 2
  • Rosario Maugeri
    • 1
  1. 1.Neurosurgical Clinic, AOUP “Paolo Giaccone”, Neurologic Surgery, Department of Experimental Biomedicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of MedicineUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Institute of NeurosurgeryCatholic University School of Medicine, Policlinico “Agostino Gemelli”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations