ReviewAnatomical science international2026
Prevalence of the high-riding vertebral artery depends on how it is defined: a meta-analysis with implications for C2 screw fixation.
Review in Anatomical science international, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The high-riding vertebral artery (HRVA) is a common anatomical variant that increases the risk of vertebral artery injury during C2 screw placement for craniocervical fixation. The reported prevalence of HRVA has varied widely (4-65%), partly due to inconsistent definitions and mixed analytical units. The current study aimed to provide a definition-sensitive, hierarchically stratified pooled prevalence of HRVA. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (inception through March 2026) identified 687 records. After screening, 51 full-text articles were reviewed, and 21 studies (34 independent cohorts; 3972 patients, 6598 sides) met criteria for quantitative pooling. A hierarchical analytical framework was applied: a primary, strict analysis restricted to patient-level cohorts using the conventional Neo/Bloch definition (C2 isthmus height ≤ 5 mm and/or internal height ≤ 2 mm); an expanded patient-level analysis incorporating all HRVA definitions; and a separate standard-definition side/joint-level analysis. Prevalence was pooled using random-effects models with the Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformation, with logit-transformed and binomial-normal mixed-model analyses as sensitivity analyses. The strict patient-level pooled prevalence was 32.2% (95% CI: 23.5-41.5%; I² = 65.7%; k = 7). Restricting to non-pathological/general populations yielded 28.5% (95% CI: 25.3-31.8%; I² = 39.9%), while pathological/selected populations pooled to 40.0% (95% CI: 17.8-64.5%). The expanded patient-level analysis (k = 21) yielded 31.7% (95% CI: 24.4-39.4%; I² = 89.5%). Definition-stratified subgroup analysis revealed a nearly fourfold range in pooled prevalence (16.8% for axial-pedicle-only to 61.5% for isthmus-only definitions). The standard-definition side- or joint-level prevalence was 20.3% (95% CI: 12.4-29.5%; k = 12). Estimates were robust to the logit transformation and a mixed-effects model, and leave-one-out analysis across all 21 cohorts confirmed robustness (range: 29.4-33.1%). Approximately one in four general-population patients and two in five pathological-population patients harbour at least one HRVA. Prevalence estimates are highly sensitive to HRVA definition, population composition, and analytical unit. Preoperative CT evaluation of the vertebral artery course at C2 should be mandatory for all patients planned for craniocervical instrumentation. Future studies should adopt the standardised Neo/Bloch definition and report prevalence by morphometric subtype to enable meaningful cross-study comparison.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42340648What 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.