Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2019; 14(03): 702-709
DOI: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_293_17
Original Article

Morphometric evaluation of craniocervical junction by magnetic resonance imaging method

Mukadder Sunar
Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan University, Erzincan
,
Samet Kapakin
1   Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Atatürk Univesity, Erzurum
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

Purpose: Morphometric evaluation of the craniocervical region using magnetic resonance imaging method in humans and determination of the reference values that could be used in various clinics were the aims of this study. Materials and Methods: In our study, 306 (95 males and 211 females) individuals who met the necessary criteria for anatomical structure were included and taken measurements afterward. Sagittal T1- and T2-weighted images were determined as a section thickness of 3 mm, an interval of 10 mm, a matrix of 352 × 224, a field of view of 170–240 mm, and a number of excitations of 4. Measurements of anatomical structures in the craniocervical region were taken via these images. Results: Statistically significant differences were found among the findings of male and female individuals such as height of dens axis, anteroposterior distance of the dens axis (APDDA), anterosuperior distance of the dens axis (ASDDA), sagittal diameter of the foramen magnum (SDFM), total cervical vertebra length (TCVL), distance of spatium retropharyngeum, Pavlov ratio, and the ratio between sagittal diameter of canalis vertebralis (SDCV) to the APDDA. Dens axis height showed a positive correlation with ASDDA and TCVL, and a negative correlation was found between the APDDA and the spatium retropharyngeum. Conclusion: Age- and sex-related changes in the measurements of anatomical regions reveal that an increase and a decrease in the various parameters reveal that these are the normal changes presumably determined by the functional and physical demands varying on the columna vertebralis.

Key-words:

Craniocervical junction - dens axis - foramen magnum - ligamentum apicis dentis - magnetic resonance imaging

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.




Publication History

Article published online:
09 September 2022

© 2019. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Ovalıoglu C. Morphometric properties of craniocervical compound. Bakırköy Prof. Dr. Mahzar Osman Mental Health and Neurological Disorders Education and Research Hospital. İstanbul, Turkey; 2005.
  • 2 Birgili B. Surgical Anatomic Evaluation of Human Cervical Vertebra Pedicles: A Cadaveric Study. Edirne, Turkey: Trakya University Faculty of Medicine; 2007.
  • 3 Clark JG, Abdullah KG, Mroz TE, Steinmetz MP. Biomechanics of the Craniovertebral Junction, Biomechanics in Applications; 2013. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/books/biomechanics-in-applications/biomechanics-of-the-craniovertebral-junction. [Last accessed 2018 Mar 15].
  • 4 Rhoton LA. Rhoton: Cranial Anatomy and Surgical Approaches. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 165-6.
  • 5 Kosif R, Huvaj S, Abanonu HE. Morphometric analysis of occipitocervical region and cervical height in the female and male. Gulhane Med J 2007;49:173-7.
  • 6 Naderi S, Arman C, Güvencer M, Korman E, Senoǧlu M, Tetik S, et al. Morphometric analysis of the C2 body and the odontoid process. Turk Neurosurg 2006;16:14-8.
  • 7 Grave B, Brown T, Townsend G. Comparison of cervicovertebral dimensions in Australian aborigines and caucasians. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:127-35.
  • 8 Sengul G, Kadioglu HH. Morphometric anatomy of atlas and axis vertebra. Turk Neurosurg 2006;16:69-76.
  • 9 Daher MT, Daher S, Nogueira-Barbosa MH, Defino HL. Computed tomographic evaluation of odontoid process: Implications for anterior screw fixation of odontoid fractures in an adult population. Eur Spine J 2011;20:1908-14.
  • 10 Xu R, Nadaud MC, Ebraheim NA, Yeasting RA. Morphology of the second cervical vertebra and the posterior projection of the C2 pedicle axis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:259-63.
  • 11 Tun K, Kaptanoglu E, Cemil B, Yorubulut M, Karahan ST, Tekdemir I, et al. Anatomical study of axis for odontoid screw thickness, length, and angle. Eur Spine J 2009;18:271-5.
  • 12 Kandziora F, Schulze-Stahl N, Khodadadyan-Klostermann C, Schröder R, Mittlmeier T. Screw placement in transoral atlantoaxial plate systems: An anatomical study. J Neurosurg 2001;95:80-7.
  • 13 Puchwein P, Jester B, Freytag B, Tanzer K, Maizen C, Gumpert R, et al. The three-dimensional morphometry of the odontoid peg and its impact on ventral screw osteosynthesis. Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:536-42.
  • 14 Ozer AF, Cosar M, Oktenoglu TB, Sasani M, Iplikcioglu AC, Bozkus H, et al. A new transodontoid fixation technique for delayed type II odontoid fracture: Technical note. Surg Neurol 2009;71:121-5.
  • 15 Anderson LD, D'Alonzo RT. Fractures of the odontoid process of the axis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1974;56:1663-74.
  • 16 Jenkins JD, Coric D, Branch CL Jr. A clinical comparison of one- and two-screw odontoid fixation. J Neurosurg 1998;89:366-70.
  • 17 Panjabi M, Dvorak J, Crisco J 3rd, Oda T, Hilibrand A, Grob D, et al. Flexion, extension, and lateral bending of the upper cervical spine in response to alar ligament transections. J Spinal Disord 1991;4:157-67.
  • 18 Tubbs RS, Grabb P, Spooner A, Wilson W, Oakes WJ. The apical ligament: Anatomy and functional significance. J Neurosurg 2000;92:197-200.
  • 19 Lindgren E. The importance of the sagittal diamater of the spinal canal in the cervical region. Nervenartz 1937;10:240-52.
  • 20 Kathole MA, Joshi RA, Herekar NG, Jadhav SS. Dimensions of cervical spinal canal and vertebrae and their relevance in clinical practice. Int J Resent Sci Res 2012;3:54-8.
  • 21 Gour KK, Shrivastava SK, Thakare AE. Size of cervical vertebral canal-measurements in lateral cervical radiographs & dried bones. Int J Biol Med Res 2011;2:778-80.
  • 22 Stephen MF, Arthur CC. Whiplash Injuries: The Cervical Acceleration/Deceleration Syndrome. 3th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002. p. 219-21.
  • 23 Chethan P, Prakash KG, Murlimanju BV, Prashanth KU, Prabhu LV, Saralaya VV, et al. Morphological analysis and morphometry of the foramen magnum: An anatomical investigation. Turk Neurosurg 2012;22:416-9.
  • 24 Galdames IC, Russo PP, Matamala DA, Smith RL. Sexual dimorphism in the foramen magnum dimensions. Int J Morphol 2009;27:21-3.
  • 25 Gruber P, Henneberg M, Böni T, Rühli FJ. Variability of human foramen magnum size. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2009;292:1713-9.
  • 26 Radhakrishna SK, Shivarama CH, Ramakrishna A, Bhagya B. Morphometric analysis of foramen magnum for sex determination in South Indian population. Nitte Univ J Health Sci 2012;2:20-2.
  • 27 Manoel C, Prado FB, Caria PH, Groppo FC. Morphometric analysis of the foramen magnum in human skulls of Brazilian individuals: Its relation to gender. Braz J Morphol Sci 2009;26:104-8.
  • 28 Osunwoke EA, Oladipo GS, Gwunireama IU, Ngaokere JO. Morphometric analysis of the foramen magnum and jugular foramen in adult skulls in Southern Nigerian population. J Sci Ind Res 2012;3:446-8.
  • 29 Tossel G. Dimensions of the Cervical Spinal Canal in the South African Negroid Population. South Africa: University of Pretoria School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, Pretoria; 2007.
  • 30 Amonoo-Kuofi HS. Morphometric changes in the heights and anteroposterior diameters of the lumbar intervertebral discs with age. J Anat 1991;175:159-68.