ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Anthropometric evaluation for surgical feasibility of C1-C2 transarticular screw stabilization in Indian population.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designThis study was a radiographic observational study for C1-C2 anthropometry. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to understand the anatomic relationship of C1-C2 in view of transarticular screw (TAS) fixation, to overcome the difficulties related with TAS placement, and to minimize the technique-related complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsIt was an anthropometric observational study with retrospectively obtained anatomical data of randomly selected 116 patients from a single center. The anatomical measurements such as pars width, pars height, screw trajectory, and length were evaluated on the axial, sagittal, and three-dimensional reconstructed cervical CT scan using the radiant DICOM viewer software by the two fellowship trained spine surgeons which were blind to the study group details. The intra- and interobserver reliability with regard to the measured parameters was statistically analyzed.
resultsThe mean age of male and female was 28 and 29 years. The average BMI was calculated to be 23.5 and 25 for males and females, respectively. The mean right pars width in males was 5.78 ± 0.93 (range: 3.1-6.5 mm), while in female, it was 5.84 ± 0.95 (range: 3.1-6.5). The mean left pars width in males was 5.95 ± 1.13 (range: 3.8-8.1 mm), while in females, it was 5.70 ± 1.18 (range: 3.7-8.1 mm). Right side mean pars height in males was 5.90 ± 1.2 (range: 3.7-9.4 mm), and in females, it was 6.11 ± 1.04 (range: 3.8-9.3 mm). Left-sided mean pars height in males was 6.0 ± 1.1 (range: 3.2-9.4 mm) as compared to females, in which it was 5.77 ± 1.23 (range: 4.1-9.3 mm). The mean lateral angulation angle in males was 9.99° ± 1.70° (8.1°-15°), while in females, it was 10.15° ± 1.73° (8.1°-15°). The mean sagittal angulation in males was 26.33° ± 3.32° (21.0°-32.80°), while in females, it was 27.18 ± 3.05 (21.0°-32.10°). The average screw length in males was 41.74 ± 5.63 (34-54.8 mm), whereas in females, it was 41.35 ± 4.77 (34-54.8 mm).
conclusionThis study provides a morphometric database which is characteristic of the C1-C2 vertebrae in the normal Indian population with regard to the anatomic feasibility of the TAS fixation for various C1-C2 pathologies. The C2 pars width and height measured in the current study can guide the selection of TAS screws in the Indian population. This study could serve in providing the baseline anatomic parameters assessed in the healthy individuals to design and develop customized screws and related implant assembly which might provide wider clinical applicability.
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.