CT Anatomical Analysis of C4 Pedicle and Lateral Mass in Children Aged 0–14 in Southern China

Abstract

Objective: The C4 is the transition point between the upper and lower cervical vertebrae and plays a pivotal role in the middle of the cervical spine. Currently, there are limited reports on large-scale sample studies regarding C4 anatomy in children, and a scarcity of experience exists in pediatric cervical spine surgery. The current study addresses the dearth of anatomical measurements of the C4 vertebral arch and lateral mass in a substantial sample of children. This study aims to measure the imaging anatomy of the C4 vertebral arch and lateral mass in children under 14 years of age across various age groups, investigate the growth and development of these structures.

Methods: We measured 12 indicators, including the size (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, and D8) and angle (A, C, D, and E) of the C4 vertebral arch and lateral mass, in 513 children who underwent cervical CT examinations at our hospital. We employed the aggregate function for statistical analysis, conducted t-tests for difference statistics, and utilized the least squares method for regression analysis.

Results: Overall, as age increased, there was a gradual increase in the size of the vertebral arch and lateral mass. Additionally, the medial inclination angle of the vertebral arch decreased, and the lateral mass flattened gradually. The rate of change decreased gradually with age. The mean value of D1 increased from 2.31 mm to 3.88 mm, of D2 from 16.75 mm to 29.2 mm, of D3 from 2.21 mm to 4.92 mm, and of D4 from 7.34 mm to 11.84 mm. Meanwhile, the mean value of D5 increased from 5.2 mm to 9.71 mm, of D6 from 10.19 mm to 16.16 mm, of D7 from 2.53 mm to 5.67 mm, and of D8 from 6.11 mm to 11.45 mm. Angle A ranged from 49.12° to 54.97°, angle C from 15.28° to 19.83°, angle D from 39.91° to 53.7°, and angle E from 18.63° to 28.08°.

Conclusion: Prior to cervical spine surgery in children, meticulous CT imaging anatomical measurements is essential. The imaging data serves as a reference for posterior C4 internal fixation, aids in designing posterior cervical screws for pediatric patients, and offer morphological anatomical references for posterior cervical spine surgery and screw design in pediatric patients.

Keywords

C4 / Imaging Anatomy / Lateral Mass / Pediatric / Pedicle

References

[1] Silva AJC, de Sousa RJA, Fernandes FAO, Ptak M, Dymek M, Parente MPL. Improvement and validation of a female finite element model of the cervical spine. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2023; 142: 105797.

[2] Melhado C, Russell KW, Acker SN, Padilla BE, Lofberg K, Spurrier RG, et al. Cervical collar-associated pressure injury in pediatric trauma patients: a Western pediatric surgery research consortium study. J Pediatr Surg. 2024; 59(2): 326–330.

[3] Dogan S, Safavi-Abbasi S, Theodore N, Horn E, Rekate HL, Sonntag VKH. Pediatric subaxial cervical spine injuries: origins, management, and outcome in 51 patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2006; 20(2): E1–E7.

[4] Tong J, Ji W, Zhou R, Huang Z, Liu S, Zhu Q. Biomechanical comparison of transfacet screws to lateral mass screw-rod constructs in the lower cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2016; 25(6): 1787–1793.

[5] Mahesh B, Upendra B, Vijay S, Arun K, Srinivasa R. Perforations and angulations of 324 cervical medial cortical pedicle screws: a possible guide to avoid lateral perforations with use of pedicle screws in lower cervical spine. Spine J. 2017; 17(3): 457–465.

[6] Mansi Z, Rbai H, Saibi F, Saadana J, Chermiti W, Zaidi B. Our experience with the surgical management of lower cervical spine fractures: fifty case series. Int Orthop. 2024; 48: 817–830.

[7] Porche K, Yan SC, Mehkri Y, Sriram S, MacNeil A, Melnick K, et al. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for posterior cervical surgery: a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2023; 39(2): 216–227.

[8] Onibokun A, Khoo LT, Bistazzoni S, Chen NF, Sassi M. Anatomical considerations for cervical pedicle screw insertion: the use of multiplanar computerized tomography measurements in 122 consecutive clinical cases. Spine J. 2009; 9(9): 729–734.

[9] Rajasekaran S, Kanna PR, Shetty AP. Safety of cervical pedicle screw insertion in children: a clinicoradiological evaluation of computer-assisted insertion of 51 cervical pedicle screws including 28 subaxial pedicle screws in 16 children. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(4): E216–E223.

[10] Rajasekaran S, Kanna PR, Shetty TA. Intra-operative computer navigation guided cervical pedicle screw insertion in thirty-three complex cervical spine deformities. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2010; 1(1): 38–43.

[11] Zheng R, Chen Y, Yao G, et al. Computed tomography-based morphometric analysis of lower cervical anterior transpedicular screw fixation and related factors in the Chinese population. World Neurosurg. 2024; 182: e721–e733.

[12] Chen X, Yang Q, Kalisi K, et al. Comparison of morphometric measurements of traditional posterior cervical screw and paravertebral foramen screw in Chinese population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021; 46(7): E443–e449.

[13] Al-Saeed O, Marwan Y, Kombar OR, et al. The feasibility of transpedicular screw fixation of the subaxial cervical spine in the Arab population: a computed tomography-based morphometric study. J Orthop Traumatol. 2016; 17(3): 231–238.

[14] Vara CS, Thompson GH. A cadaveric examination of pediatric cervical pedicle morphology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(10): 1107–1112.

[15] Kanna PR, Shetty AP, Rajasekaran S. Anatomical feasibility of pediatric cervical pedicle screw insertion by computed tomographic morphometric evaluation of 376 pediatric cervical pedicles. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(16): 1297–1304.

[16] Sureisen M, Saw LB, Wei Chan CY, et al. Radiological assessment of cervical lateral mass screw angulations in Asian patients. Indian J Orthop. 2011; 45(6): 504–507.

[17] Anderson PA, Henley MB, Grady MS, et al. Posterior cervical arthrodesis with AO reconstruction plates and bone graft. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991; 16(3 Suppl): S72–S79.

[18] Jeanneret B, Magerl F, Ward EH, et al. Posterior stabilization of the cervical spine with hook plates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991; 16(3 Suppl): S56–S63.

[19] Roy-Camille R, Salient G, Mazel C. Internal fixation of the unstable cervical spine by a posterior osteosynthesis with plates and screws. In: HM Sherk, TCSR Society, editors. The Cervical Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1989. p. 390–403.

[20] Zhao XL, Zhao HB, Wang B, Zhu XS, Li LZ, Zhang CQ. Lower cervical spine injury treated with lateral mass plates and pedicle screws through posterior approach. Chin J Traumatol. 2005; 8(3): 160–164.

[21] Soliman MAR, Khan S, Ruggiero N, Mariotti BL, Aguirre AO, Kuo CC, et al. Complications associated with subaxial placement of pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws in the cervical spine: systematic review and meta-analysis comprising 1768 patients and 8636 screws. Neurosurg Rev. 2022; 45(3): 1941–1950.

[22] Jones EL, Heller JG, Silcox DH, Hutton WC. Cervical pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws. Anatomic feasibility and biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997; 22(9): 977–982.

[23] Barnes AH, Eguizabal JA, Acosta FL Jr, Lotz JC, Buckley JM, Ames CP. Biomechanical pullout strength and stability of the cervical artificial pedicle screw. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(1): E16–E20.

[24] Johnston TL, Karaikovic EE, Lautenschlager EP, Marcu D. Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths. Spine J. 2006; 6(6): 667–672.

[25] An HS, Coppes MA. Posterior cervical fixation for fracture and degenerative disc disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997; 335: 101–111.

[26] Chen J, Liang T, Hu Y, Ma Y, Huang S, Chen L, et al. Suitability of 3.5-mm screw for the atlas in children: a retrospective computed tomography analysis. Eur Spine J. 2022; 31(5): 1241–1250.

[27] Chen J, Cen J, Ma T, du Y, Liang T, Liao S, et al. Feasibility of 3.5 mm C2 pedicle screws in children: a computerized tomography analysis. Clin Anat. 2022; 35(3): 347–353.

[28] 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): 119–122.

[29] Ruofu Z, Huilin Y, Xiaoyun H, Xishun H, Tiansi T, Liang C, et al. CT evaluation of cervical pedicle in a Chinese population for surgical application of transpedicular screw placement. Surg Radiol Anat. 2008; 30(5): 389–396.

[30] Wang Z, Leng J, Liu J, Liu Y. Morphological study of the posterior osseous structures of subaxial cervical spine in a population from northeastern China. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015; 10: 53.

[31] Wasinpongwanich K, Paholpak P, Tuamsuk P, et al. Morphological study of subaxial cervical pedicles by using three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction image. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2014; 54(9): 736–745.

[32] Ranade A, Samdani AF, Williams R, Barne K, McGirt MJ, Ramos G, et al. Feasibility and accuracy of pedicle screws in children younger than eight years of age. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(26): 2907–2911.

[33] Holland CM, Kebriaei MA, Wrubel DM. Posterior cervical spinal fusion in a 3-week-old infant with a severe subaxial distraction injury. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2016; 17(3): 353–356.

[34] Zhang S, Wang X, Ren X, Li Z, Zhang Y. Applications of digital technology for the morphological study of C3-C7 vertebral arch pedicle in children. Folia Morphol. 2017; 76(3): 426–432.

[35] Al-Shamy G, Cherian J, Mata JA, et al. Computed tomography morphometric analysis for lateral mass screw placement in the pediatric subaxial cervical spine. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 17(5): 390–396.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.