Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CT analysis of C2 pedicles morphology and considerations of useful parameters for screwing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Surgery of cervical spine steadily requires realizing posterior osteosynthesis. The anchoring of instrumentation in C2 steadily constitutes an important stake of prognosis. Pedicle screwing is one of the best options and remains associated with a low morbidity. The aim of this CT study is to provide, from a wide population, the descriptive anatomical parameters of C2 pedicles. The data enable this analysis of feasibility of C2 pedicles screwing.

Materials and methods

A continuous and retrospective series have explored 100 CT scans of the cervical spine without finding C2 fracture. The software OSIRIX v5.0.2 has been used. The dimensions of the pedicles in C2 as length, diameter, and distance from the vertebral foramens have been measured from the preset posterior entry point. Their orientation has been described in the axial and sagittal plan by the pedicle transverse angle, the sagittal angle and the pedicle–lamina angle used as a visible mark during the procedure. At least, the feasibility of pedicle screwing has been evaluated using a diameter criterion higher than 4 mm.

Results

The dimensions analysis of 200 studied pedicles has found an average length as 26.18 mm, an average diameter as 5.18 mm and an average distance between the entry point and the vertebral foramen as 9.06 mm. Their orientations have an average PTA as 36.6° and a SA as 25.8°. The average of the PLA was 81.3. The screwing feasibility has been evaluated as 92.5 % in the whole series.

Conclusion

These morphological data come from a large series give some help for the C2 pedicle screwing preoperative planning. These lean on 3D measures but also on accessible mark during the procedure and despite the difference of the patient orientation. A CT preoperative planning of the pedicle screwing remains essential because more than 7 % of the pedicles have a diameter lower than 4 mm.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Benzel EC (1996) Anatomic consideration of C2 pedicle screw placement. Spine 21(19):2301–2302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Borne GM, Bedou GL, Pinaudeau M (1984) Treatment of pedicular fractures of the axis. A clinical study and screw fixation technique. J Neurosurg 60(1):88–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Elliott RE, Tanweer O, Boah A, Smith ML, Frempong-Boadu A (2012) Comparison of safety and stability of C2 pars and pedicle screws for atlantoaxial fusion: meta-analysis and review of literature. J Neurosurg Spine 17(6):577–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Helgeson MD, Lehman RA, Dmitriev AE, Kang DG, Sasso RC, Tannoury C, Riew KD (2011) Accuracy of the freehand technique for 3 fixation methods in the C-2 vertebrae. Neurosurg Focus 31(4):E11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Howington JU, Kruse JJ, Awasthi D (2001) Surgical anatomy of the C-2 pedicle. J Neurosurg 95(1):88–92

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Judet R, Roy-Camille R, Saillant G (1970) Fracture du rachis cervical. In: Masson (ed) Actualités de chirurgie orthopédique de l’Hospital Raymond-Poincaré, 8th edn. Masson, Paris, pp 174–195

  7. Koller H, Hitzl W, Acosta F, Tauber M, Zenner J, Resch H, Yukawa Y, Meier O, Schmidt R, Mayer M (2009) In vitro study of accuracy of cervical pedicle screw insertion using an electronic conductivity device (ATPS part III). Eur Spine J 18(9):1300–1313

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee KH, Kang DH, Lee CH, Hwang SH, Park IS, Jung JM (2011) Inferolateral entry point for C2 pedicle screw fixation in high cervical lesions. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 50(4):341–347

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lehman RA Jr, Dimitriev AE, Helgeson MD, Sasso RC, Kulko TR, Riew KD (2008) Salvage of C2 pedicle and pars screws using the intralaminar technique: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 33(9):960–965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Naderi S, Arman C, Güvençer M, Korman E, Senoğlu M, Tetik S, Arda N (2004) An anatomical study of the C-2 pedicle. J Neurosurg Spine 1(3):306–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pang D, Thompson DN (2011) Embryology and bony malformations of the craniovertebral junction. Childs Nerv Syst 27(4):523–564

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosset A, Spadola L, Pysher L, Ratib O (2006) Informatics in radiology (infoRAD): navigating the fifth dimension: innovative interface for multidimensional multimodality image navigation. Radiographics 26(1):299–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Savage JW, Limthongkul W, Park HS, Zhang LQ, Karaikovic EE (2011) A comparison of biomechanical stability and pullout strength of two C1–C2 fixation constructs. Spine J 11(7):654–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith ZA, Bistazzoni S, Onibokun A, Chen N-F, Sassi M, Khoo LT (2010) Anatomical considerations for subaxial (C2) pedicle screw placement: a radiographic study with computed tomography in 93 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(3):176–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Xu R, Nadaud MC, Ebraheim NA, Yeasting RA (1995) Morphology of the second cervical vertebra and the posterior projection of the C2 pedicle axis. Spine 20(3):259–263

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Surgery Department, Rouen University Hospital, 1 Rue de Germont, 76031, Rouen Cedex, France

    Mourad Ould-Slimane, Sebastien Le Pape, Emmanuel Foulongne, Camille Damade, Franck Dujardin & Fabrice Duparc

  2. Pediatric Surgery Unit, Rouen University Hospital, 1 Rue de Germont, 76031, Rouen Cedex, France

    Julien Leroux

  3. Laboratory of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, 22 Bvd Gambetta, 76183, Rouen Cedex 1, France

    Fabrice Duparc

Authors
  1. Mourad Ould-Slimane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastien Le Pape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julien Leroux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emmanuel Foulongne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Camille Damade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Franck Dujardin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fabrice Duparc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mourad Ould-Slimane.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ould-Slimane, M., Le Pape, S., Leroux, J. et al. CT analysis of C2 pedicles morphology and considerations of useful parameters for screwing. Surg Radiol Anat 36, 537–542 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-013-1233-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-013-1233-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation