Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 15513

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : September | Volume : 17 | Issue : 9 | Page : AC10 - AC14 Full Version

A Cross-sectional Study of Third to Seventh Cervical Vertebral Bodies, Pedicles, and its Relevance to Screw Size used in Clinical Practice


Published: September 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/64478.18466
Kishore Chandra Thakur, Sunder Lal Jethani

1. Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. 2. Professor, Department of Anatomy, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Kishore Chandra Thakur,
Flat No. 33, Ground Floor, Lane-2, Madhu Vihar, Haripur, Kanwali, GMS Road, Near Jewel Residency, Dehradun-248001, Uttarakhand, India.
E-mail: bestthakur@hotmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: To provide stability to the unstable cervical spine, the usage of transpedicular screws is very common due to their success in providing good results in terms of fixation, stability, and strength. The size of the transpedicular screw used must be in accordance with the morphology of the pedicle of the vertebra in a particular region or group of the population. This helps avoid pedicle wall damage along with nearby neurovascular structures.

Aim: The aim of the present study was to measure the body and pedicle of cervical vertebrae (third to the seventh) and to understand their morphology in relation to the need for a uniform screw size.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from May 2019 to March 2023, using a total sample of 102 adult human dry cervical vertebrae collected from the bone bank of the Anatomy Department at the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, SRHU, Dehradun. Only cervical vertebrae from the third to the seventh were included. Digital vernier calipers were used to measure the parameters, including the Transverse Diameter (TD), Anteroposterior Diameter (APD), and Vertical Height (VH) of the vertebral body, as well as the Pedicle Width (PW), Pedicle Height (PH), and Pedicle Length (PL) of the pedicle. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft® Excel® 2019 MSO (Version 2209 Build 16.0.15629.20200) 64-bit software (Microsoft Office Home and Student 2019, Washington, USA). The parameters of the right and left sides of the pedicle (PW, PH, PL) were compared using the student’s t-test, and Pearson correlation test was used to find correlations among them. A p-value of 0.05 or lower was considered statistically significant.

Results: For the vertebral body, the mean APD was 16.6 mm, VH was 11.6 mm, and TD was 25.6 mm. For the pedicle, the mean PW was 5.1 mm, PH was 6.5 mm, PL was 8 mm, and Axial Length (AXL) was 30.4 mm. No significant difference was found between the right and left sides of PW (p=0.7), PH (p=0.2), PL (p=0.7), and AXL (p=0.2). A weak correlation (0.31-0.40) was observed among the parameters of the vertebral body (APD, TD, VH), whereas a moderate to strong correlation (0.60-0.89) was noticed among the parameters of the cervical vertebrae pedicle (PW, PH, PL, and AXL).

Conclusion: The size of the screw used for spinal fixation in one region of the Indian population may not always be compatible with other regions. This morphological study of the cervical vertebral body and pedicle suggests its clinical relevance in the use of a cervical transpedicular screw with a diameter of less than 4 mm and a length of less than 30 mm. Additionally, using a screw along the sagittal plane of the vertebral body with a length of less than 16 mm may reduce bone breach and prevent neurovascular damage.

Keywords

Pedicle screw, Spinal disease, Vertebrae

The seven cervical vertebrae are identified by the presence of the foramen transversarium in the transverse process through which important vessels like the vertebral artery pass, except in the seventh cervical vertebra. Altogether, the cervical vertebral column has a secondary curvature, i.e., an anterior convex curvature. The vertebral body and pedicle are stronger components of the third to seventh cervical vertebrae and are thus widely used for instrumentation. The pedicle on each side is a short cylindrical bony part that projects posterolaterally from the body of the vertebra, and after joining the lamina of the vertebra, it completes the neural arch. Morphometry of the vertebral body and the pedicle plays a role in providing stability post-fixation by screws or wires. Variability in the morphometric data has been reported regarding the vertebral body and pedicle of each cervical vertebra and in different populations (1),(2).

The procedure of introducing a cervical screw carries a risk of neurovascular damage if the screw violates its course while traversing the pedicle (3),(4),(5),(6). A transpedicular screw is commonly utilised in spinal surgeries, either by an anterior or posterior approach, to stabilise an unstable spine due to trauma or pathological conditions (7). No complications were documented in a study when the transpedicular cancellous screw was used in accordance with pedicle size (8). However, in different studies, higher medial wall damage of the pedicle was noted due to maladaptation between the pedicle and the screw size used, even after using intraoperative imaging techniques (8),(9),(10),(11),(12),(13). One study concluded that although the strength of the pedicle of the cervical vertebra is similar to that of the thoracic and lumbar areas, the use of a screw there carries an unacceptable risk (14).

The research has been undertaken with the variability of morphological dimensions of the cervical vertebral body and pedicle in mind, and its usefulness during vertebral column fixation. The available data either focus on individual cervical vertebrae numbers or adhere to pedicle dimensions. However, the present study aimed to estimate the morphological dimensions of different parameters in collaboration with all parameters required for vertebral instrumentation. Additional knowledge of anatomical measurements of the required parameters will encourage the use of more compatible screws with the aim of reducing neurovascular damage during spinal surgeries. Thus, the aim of the study was to measure the body and pedicle of cervical vertebrae (third to the seventh) and to understand their morphology in relation to the need for a uniform screw size. The secondary objective is to compare the parameters required for screw fixation and determine the correlation among those necessary parameters.

Material and Methods

The protocol for this cross-sectional study, conducted from May 2019 to March 2023 over a duration of four years, was approved by the research and ethical committee (LOA: Anatomy/2019/01) of the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, SRHU, Dehradun. A total number of 102 dry human cervical vertebrae from the bone bank of the anatomy department were collected. The sample excluded the atlas (C1) and axis (C2) due to their lower frequency of surgeries. Damaged and malformed cervical vertebrae were excluded. The specific age and sex of the bones could not be confirmed due to the unavailability of specific records.

The dimensions of parameters such as the pedicle and vertebral body could be helpful for surgeons during spine fixation using transpedicular screws. However, it is not practical to apply the data from each specific number of cervical vertebrae in all scenarios. To address this issue and make the data more practically applicable and less cumbersome, we used the mean of each parameter for the third to seventh cervical vertebrae.

The parameters measured included the following: for the cervical vertebral body, the authors measured the Anteroposterior Distance (APD), Transverse Distance (TD), and VH (distance between the mid of the anterosuperior and anteroinferior margin of the vertebral body) (Table/Fig 1),(Table/Fig 2),(Table/Fig 3),(Table/Fig 4). For the pedicle of each side of each cervical vertebra, we measured PH (distance between the superior and inferior border of the pedicle), PW (distance between the medial and lateral border of the pedicle from the superior aspect), and PL (distance between the vertebral end and laminar end of the pedicle from the inferior aspect) (Table/Fig 1),(5),(6),(7).

All measurements were performed according to the method used in previous studies by Prameela MD et al., and Bazaldua CJJ et al., (12),(15).

APD: Anteroposterior Distance across the vertebral body (Table/Fig 1),(Table/Fig 3).

TD: Transverse Distance across the vertebral body (Table/Fig 2).

VH: Distance between the mid of the anterosuperior and anteroinferior margin of the vertebral body (Table/Fig 2),(Table/Fig 4).

PH: Distance between the superior and inferior border of the pedicle (Table/Fig 5).

PW: Distance between the medial and lateral border of the pedicle from the superior aspect (Table/Fig 1),(Table/Fig 6).

PL: Distance between the vertebral end and laminar end of the pedicle from the inferior aspect (Table/Fig 7).

AXL: Distance from the mid of the anterosuperior margin of the vertebral body to the mid of the superior and inferior articular process posteriorly (Table/Fig 8).

The APD and TD of the vertebral body were measured from the superior aspect, while VH was measured from the anterior aspect. Digital Vernier Caliper SAFESEED (ASIN B01GV06XQM) was used with a resolution of 0.1 mm/0.1” and an accuracy of ±0.2 mm/0.01” to take all measurements in mm to one decimal point. Each measurement was taken twice by a single observer, and the average of both measurements was considered.

Statistical Analysis

The Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD), and Standard Error (SE) of different parameters were calculated. A t-test was applied to compare right-left parameters, and Pearson correlation test was used to analyse the relationships between variables. A graph was plotted using Microsoft® Excel® 2019 MSO (Version 2209 Build 16.0.15629.20200) 64-bit (Microsoft Office Home and Student 2019, Washington, USA). A p-value of <0.05 or lower was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 102 dry cervical vertebral bodies were measured. The mean TD was 25.6 mm ±2.6, APD was 16.6 mm ±2.2, and VH was 11.6 mm ±1.4 (Table/Fig 9).

When Pearson correlation was applied, a weak positive correlation (less than 0.45) was observed between APD and TD, TD and VH. However, no correlation was observed between APD and VH (Table/Fig 10). (Table/Fig 11) shows a the weak positive correlation graphically.

A total of 204 cervical vertebrae pedicles were measured, with 102 on each side. The mean values of the pedicle parameters were as follows: PW 5.1 mm ±0.9, PH 6.5 mm ±0.9, PL 8.0 mm ±2.1, and AXL 30.3 mm ±2.6 (Table/Fig 9). When measuring the pedicle of each side of each vertebra, the mean values were as follows: RPW 5.1 mm ±0.9, RPH 6.5 mm ±0.9, RPL 8.0 mm, RAXL 30.4 mm ±2.6 on the right side, and LPW 5.1 mm ±0.9, LPH 6.5 mm ±1, LPL 8.0 mm ±2.2, LAXL 30.3 mm ±2.6 on the left side. No significant difference (p>0.05) was found between RPW/LPW, RPH/LPH, RPL/LPL, and RAXL/LAXL (Table/Fig 12). Moderate strength of correlation (0.45 < r< 0.75) was observed between the right and left sides of each parameter (Table/Fig 12).

Discussion

In the present study, the parameters of the vertebral body showed a higher mean TD (25.6 mm) than the mean APD (16.6 mm), while the mean VH of the body was the lowest among the three, which is consistent with the known characteristic feature of the cervical vertebral body. The parameters of the pedicle in the cervical vertebrae of the present study showed a higher mean PH (6.5 mm) compared to the mean PW (5.1 mm). The mean values of the pedicle parameters on the right side were equal to those on the left side. In a study by Ebraheim NA et al., it was found that the anteroposterior length of the vertebral body increased from top to bottom, and the mean value was higher in males (10). The mean value of APD in the present study (16.6 mm) was consistent with a study by Rao EVK et al., on Indians, which reported an APD of 15.9 mm (11).

Higher vertebral body parameters were noted in the present study compared to a study on the South Indian population by Prameela MD et al., (Table/Fig 13) (12). In comparison with a study on the Nigerian population (13), the mean APD of Nigerians was much higher, which could be due to variations in ethnicity or environmental factors. However, the vertebral body parameters in the present study were closer to those of the Turkish (14), Mexican (15), and Singaporean (16) populations.

Chen ZW and Cao SJ concluded in their study that lower-level cervical spine instability can be corrected using pedicle screws, taking into account the available cervical pedicle dimensions for effective fixation (17). Xu R et al., also support this statement, emphasising the risk of penetration during screw insertion (18). Therefore, the anteroposterior dimension of the vertebral body (Table/Fig 13) and the various parameters of the pedicle should not be neglected, considering the potential risk of damage to nearby neurovascular structures (3),(4),(5),(6),(19).

When comparing the data (Table/Fig 14), pedicle parameters such as PL, PW, and PH in the present study were closer to the means of similar parameters in the Egyptian population (20), but not in accordance with other studies on the Indian population. In the present study, PL (8.0 mm) was measured from the inferior aspect, while in the study by Prameela MD et al., on the Indian population, PL was 5.41 mm and measured from the superior aspect. This could be the most probable reason for the significant difference in the mean value of PL between the two studies (12).

For the cervical vertebrae from C3-C7, the pedicle AXL range was 30.0 to 36.5 mm in the study by Eldin MMM, and the mean pedicle AXL measured in the present study was 30.38 mm (20). The present study’s mean value of pedicle AXL was consistent with a study by Kumar S et al., on the Indian population (21).

When comparing pedicle dimensions of the third to seventh cervical vertebrae in different studies on the Indian population (Table/Fig 15), it can be inferred that a safer pedicle screw diameter could be less than 4 mm, considering that the mean PW and height were in the range of 4.3 to 6.1 mm and 5.2 to 7.1 mm, respectively. At C3 (Table/Fig 15), there was a minimum PW of 4.3 mm and a PH of 5.2 mm, suggesting that a screw with a diameter less than 4 mm may provide better fixation without breaching the bone bridge required (22),(23).

A variety of cortical and cancellous screws are available in diameters ranging from 2.7 to 4.5 mm. For safer insertion of the pedicle screw, a bony bridge of approximately 0.5 mm on either side is required (23),(24). Some studies recommend a 0.75 mm bony bridge on each side of the screw for added safety (25).

During the introduction of the pedicle screw, there is a higher risk of breaching the bony margin on the lateral side, approximately 10%, due to the mismatch in screw size (26). The foramen transversarium contains the vertebral artery, which is related to the lateral aspect of the pedicle. According to a study by Sharma D et al., the lateral distance from the pedicle to the vertebral artery ranges from 0.97 mm to 1.15 mm (24). Considering the high likelihood of neurovascular complications during pedicle breach, Patwardhan AR et al., recommended the use of a 2.7 mm diameter transpedicular screw (25).

Eldin MMM found pedicle AXL within the range of 30 to 36.5 mm in the Egyptian population (20), while studies on the Indian population showed axial PL in the range of 29.2-33.4 mm (21),(27). The mean axial PL in the present study was 30.38 mm, consistent with other studies conducted on Indians (21),(27). (Table/Fig 13),(Table/Fig 14),(Table/Fig 15) displays comparative studies of vertebral bodies, pedicle dimensions, and a comparative study of the pedicle from C3 to C7, respectively (4),(12),(14),(15),(16),(20),(21),(22),(23),(24),(25),(27),(28),(29),(30).

No significant difference was observed after applying the t-test among the pedicle parameters of the right and left sides (Table/Fig 12). A moderate correlation was observed among the pedicle parameters. The right and left axial PL showed a strong correlation when applying Pearson correlation, but the p-value was not significant (p=0.58). Based on the available data (Table/Fig 14) on the AXL of the pedicle, it can be suggested that the length of the pedicle screw should not exceed 30 mm (4),(12),(14),(15),(16),(20),(21),(23),(27),(28),(29). A similar view was presented by Kumar S et al., in the context of Indian cervical vertebrae, where they recommended a screw length of 20-30 mm for surgeries (21). The present study’s data on various parameters indicate that a compatible screw may have a diameter of less than 4 mm and a length of less than 30 mm. Additionally, a screw used in the sagittal plane of the vertebral body with a length of less than 15 mm may be more compatible and safe.

Limitation(s)

The non availability of data regarding the age and sex of the bones is a limitation of this study.

Conclusion

Knowledge of these variations in parameters adds additional safety measures during surgeries. As there were no significant differences observed in the right and left pedicle parameters, with weak and moderate correlations among other parameters, it would help surgeons use more uniform and compatible screws safely at all levels from C3-C7. This may reduce the occurrence of neurovascular complications that commonly arise from breaching the bony boundaries of pedicle in cervical vertebrae.

Acknowledgement

I humbly express my gratitude to all those who donated their bodies and helped the medical fraternity to gain knowledge and utilise it for the betterment of the community and nation. I am thankful to all the respected departmental staff, colleagues, and seniors for providing me all kind of support whenever I needed it. Last but not least, I am grateful to my wife for her constant moral support and encouragement.

References

1.
Abuzayed B, Tutunculer B, Kucukyuruk B, Tuzgen, S. Anatomic basis of anterior and posterior instrumentation of the spine: Morphometric study. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010;32(1):75-85. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Yusof MI, Ming LK, Abdullah MS. Computed tomographic measurement of cervical pedicles for transpedicular fixation in a Malay population. J Orthop Surg. 2007;15(2):187-90. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Albumi K, Shono Y, Ito M, Taneichi H, Kotani Y, Kaneda K. Complication of pedicle screw fixation in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine. Spine. 2000;25(8):962-69. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Ugur HC, Attar A, Uz A, Tekdemir I, Egemen N, Caglar S, et al. Surgical anatomic evaluation of the cervical pedicle and adjacent neural structures. Neurosurg. 2000;47(5):1162-68; discussion 1168-69.[crossref][PubMed]
5.
Neo M, Sakamoto T, Fujibayashi S, Nakamura T. The clinical risk of vertebral artery injury from cervical pedicle screws inserted in degenerative vertebrae. Spine. 2005;30(24):2800-05. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Reinhold M, Bach C, Audige L, Bale R, Attal R, Blauth M, et al. Comparison of two novel fluoroscopy-based stereotactic methods for cervical pedicle screw placement and review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(4):564-75. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Jeanneret B, Gebhard JS, Magerl F. Transpedicular screw fixation of articular mass fracture-separation: Results of an anatomical study and operative technique. J Spinal Disord. 1994;7(3):222-29. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Abumi K, Itoh H, Taneichi H, Kaneda K. Transpedicular screw fixation for traumatic lesions of the middle and lower cervical spine: Description of the techniques and preliminary report. J Spinal Disord. 1994;7(1):19-28. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Miller RM, Ebraheim NA, Xu R, Yeasting RA. Anatomic consideration of transpedicular screw placement in the cervical spine. An analysis of two approaches. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(20):2317-22. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Ebraheim NA, Fow J, Xu R, Yeasting RA. The vertebral body depths of the cervical spine and its relation to anterior plate-screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(21):2299-302. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Rao EVK, Rao BS, Vinila BHS. Morphometric analysis of typical cervical vertebrae and their clinical implications: A cross sectional study. Int J Anat Res. 2016;4(4):2988-92. [crossref]
12.
Prameela MD, Prabhu LV, Murlimanju BV, Pai MM, Rai R, Chettiar GK. Anatomical dimensions of the typical cervical vertebrae and their clinical implications. Eur J Anat. 2020;24:09-15.
13.
Udoaka AI, Chisom E. Morphology of the typical cervical vertebral body and spinal canal-applicability of Torg-Pavlov ratio in Nigeria. J of Forensic Scie. 2016;1(1):17-20. [crossref]
14.
Polat S, Göker P, Yücel AH, Bozkir MG. Morphometric study of dry cervical vertebrae. Int J Morphol. 2019;37(3):845-51. [crossref]
15.
Bazaldua CJJ, Gonzalez Lario LA, Gomez SA. Morphometric study of cervical vertebrae C3-C7 in a population from Northeastern Mexico. Int J Morphol. 2011;29(2):325-30. [crossref]
16.
Bozbuga M, Ozturk A, Ari Z, Sahinoglu K, Bayraktar B, Cecen A . Morphometric evaluation of subaxial cervical vertebrae for surgical application of transpedicular screw fixation. Spine. 2004;29(17):1876-80. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Chen ZW, Cao SJ. Advance of lower cervical spine pedicle screw fixation in treatment of lower cervical spine instability. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2003;17(4):286-88.
18.
Xu R, Ebraheim NA, Skie M. Pedicle screw fixation in the cervical spine. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2008;37(8):403-08.
19.
Chanplakorn P, Kraiwattanapong C, Aroonjarathham K, Leelapattana P, Keorochana G, Jaovisidha S, et al. Morphometric evaluation of subaxial cervical spine using multi-detector computerized tomography (MD-CT) scan: The consideration for cervical pedicle screw fixation. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2014;15:125. Doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-125. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Eldin MMM. Cervical pedicle screw fixation: Anatomic feasibility of pedicle morphology and radiologic evaluation of the anatomical measurements. Asian Spine J. 2014;8(3):273-80. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Kumar S, Saini NK, Singh D, Chadha M, Mehrotra G. Computed tomographic analysis of cervical spine pedicles in the adult Indian population Surg Neurol Int. 2021;12:68. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Panjabi MM, Shin EK, Chen NC, Wang JL. Internal morphology of human cervical pedicles. Spine. 2000;25(10):1197-205 [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Farooque K, Yadav R, Chowdhury B, Gamanagatti S, Kumar A, Meena PK. Computerized tomography-based morphometric analysis of subaxial cervical spine pedicle in asymptomatic Indian population. Int J Spine Surg. 2018;12(2):112-20. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Sharma D, Sawarkar DP, Singh PK, Kale SS, Joseph L, Garg A, et al. Determination of availability of safety margin for placement of C3-C6 pedicle screw on CT angiography. World Neurosurg. 2022;157:e22-e28. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Patwardhan AR, Nemade PS, Bhosale SK, Srivastava SK. Computed tomography-based morphometric analysis of cervical pedicles in Indian population: A pilot study to assess feasibility of transpedicular screw fixation. J Postgrad Med. 2012;58(2):119-22. [crossref][PubMed]
26.
Kast E, Mohr K, Richter HP, Börm W. Complications of transpedicular screw fixation in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(3):327-34. [crossref][PubMed]
27.
Gupta R, Kapoor K, Sharma A, Kochhar S, Garg R. Morphometry of typical cervical vertebrae on dry bones and CT scan and its implications in transpedicular screw placement surgery. Surg Radiol Anat. 2013;35(3):181-89. [crossref][PubMed]
28.
Liu J, Napolitano JT, Ebraheim NA. Systematic review of cervical pedicle dimensions and projections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(24):E1373-80. [crossref][PubMed]
29.
Kayalioglu G, Erturk M, Varol T, Cezayirli E. Morphometry of the cervical vertebral pedicles as a guide for transpedicular screw fixation. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2007;47(3):102-08. [crossref][PubMed]
30.
Banerjee PS, Roychoudhury A, Karmakar SK. Morphometric analysis of the cervical spine of Indian population by using computerized tomography. J Med Allied Sci. 2012;2(2): 66-76.

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/64478.18466

Date of Submission: Apr 04, 2023
Date of Peer Review: May 12, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Jul 22, 2023
Date of Publishing: Sep 01, 2023

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? No
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Apr 07, 2023
• Manual Googling: May 20, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Jul 18, 2023 (8%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 7

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com