Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42489701›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

The vertebral artery loops: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Andrei-Cristian Albu, Mugurel Constantin Rusu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrei-Cristian AlbuCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania. andrei-cristian.albu2023@stud.umfcd.ro.
Mugurel Constantin RusuCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania. mugurel.rusu@umfcd.ro.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeVertebral artery loops (VALs) are focal deviations of the vertebral artery course that may produce pulsatile nerve-root compression and substantially increase the risk of iatrogenic vascular injury during cervical spine procedures. Although individually uncommon, they are a recognised "hidden danger" whose recognition changes preoperative planning. We aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of VALs, to explain the wide variation in reported figures, and to translate these data into a practical framework for preoperative decision-making in cervical spine surgery.

methodsA PRISMA-guided systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified 58 publications for qualitative synthesis. Ten primary studies reporting the number of examined vertebral arteries (VAs) and identified loops were pooled in a meta-analysis of proportions. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was applied to raw proportions; a Freeman-Tukey double arcsine (DAS) transformation was used as a variance-stabilising sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q and I², and explored with a pre-specified subgroup analysis by study methodology (radiological imaging cohorts vs. anatomical/morphometric series).

resultsTen studies comprising 7,475 VAs and 126 loops were pooled. The random-effects prevalence of VALs was 1.71% (95% CI 0.87%-2.55%), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 93.4%; Q = 136.9; p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed that this heterogeneity is largely methodological: radiological imaging cohorts pooled at 1.09% (95% CI 0.60%-1.58%; I² = 82%), whereas the two small anatomical/morphometric series - which were also the two statistical outliers - pooled at approximately 39%. After removing these two studies, the raw-proportion (1.09%) and Freeman-Tukey (1.19%) estimates converged, confirming a robust prevalence of roughly 1-2% in unselected radiological populations. Clinically relevant loops were most often located in the V2 segment at mid-cervical levels (C4-C6); medial loops were associated with vertebral body scalloping and enlargement of the foramen transversarium, and lateral/foraminal loops with cervical radiculopathy.

conclusionVALs are uncommon but disproportionately dangerous. The pooled prevalence is best understood not as a population statistic but as a baseline pre-test probability that indirect osseous signs sharply raise. When vertebral body scalloping, an enlarged foramen transversarium, or anomalous (non-C6) entry is seen - or when complex anterior decompression or craniovertebral instrumentation is planned - preoperative CTA/MRA and a deliberate modification of the operative corridor are warranted.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraeVertebral ArteryHumansAnatomical variationCervical spineMeta-analysisSurgical safetyVertebral arteryVertebral artery loop

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.