ArticleGlobal spine journal2022
Anatomical Parameters for Occipital Condyle Screws: An Analysis of 500 Condyles Using CT Scans.
Article in Global spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Morphometric Assessment of Occipital Condyles and Foramen Magnum Reveals Enhanced Sexual Dimorphism Detection via 3D Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Utilizing Classification and Regression Trees.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- An alternative way of C1 screwing: Supralaminar C1 lateral mass screws.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- The modified occipital condyle screw: A quantitative anatomic study investigating the feasibility of a novel instrumented fixation technique for craniocervical fusion.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Odontoid remodeling with occipital condyle stabilization in patients with metastatic C2 involvement.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective observational study.
objectiveTo establish occipital condyle dimensions (length, width, height), as well as the medialization angle necessary for safe occipital condyle screw placement in occipitocervical fixation.
methodsBetween 1/2014-6/2014, patients who presented to a single level 1 academic trauma center emergency room and received computed tomography (CT) imaging of the cervical spine as part of routine clinical care were identified. After excluding patients with cervical fractures, neoplastic disease, or infection, 500 condyles representing 250 patients were analyzed. Condyle length, height, and width (all reported in millimeters [mm]) were evaluated on the sagittal, coronal, and axial series, respectively. Medialization angle (reported in degrees) was evaluated on the axial series of CT imaging. Measurements were compared by sex and age.
resultsThe average condyle length, width, and height were 18.6 millimeters (mm) (range, 14.5-23.0 mm), 10.5 mm (range, 7.4-13.8 mm), and 11.3 mm (7.1-15.3 mm), respectively. Additionally, the average occipital condyle medialization angle was 23° (range, 14-32°). Occipital condyles of men were significantly longer, wider, and taller (all comparisons, p < 0.05). The medialization angle was significantly steeper for women than men (p < 0.05). No measurement differences were appreciated by age.
conclusionOur findings are similar to previous studies in the field; however, length appears slightly shorter. Further, measurement differences were appreciated by sex but not age. Thus, our measurement findings emphasize the importance of preoperative planning utilizing individual patient anatomy to ensure safe placement of occipital condyle screws for optimal outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.