Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_6029_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
27 Мб
Скачать
18
2 Biomechanical Remarks
one side by others [23, 27]. In the occipitoatlantoaxial complex, 85–90% of all axial rotation comes from the atlantoaxial segment [10, 23]. Penning and Wilmink [27] found that atlantoaxial complex accounted for 56% of the whole cervical rotation with respect to the first thoracic vertebra. Normal range of rotation between C1 and C2 is determined on an average about 40° to each side [3, 17,
34]. Range of axial rotation to one side in C1-C2 has
been reported in the various studies to be between 23° [10] and 47° [33]. The great differences in the results are mostly due to the differences in the methods used and dissimilarities of in vitro and in vivo studies. For exam­ple, Dvorak et al. reported in their in vivo (CT) tests an average range of axial rotation 32.2° and consecutively,
43.1° [4]. The high rotational motion range is facilitated by very loose AA joint capsules and limited quite freely by allar ligaments. The allar ligaments (connecting the dens axis with occipital condyles and the anterior arch of the atlas) consist of high amount of collagen fibers and their major function is to prevent redundant axial rotation to the contralateral side [6, 22, 33]. These ligaments together with tectorial membrane also limit the flexion of the occiput and during lateral bending are responsible for the forced rotation of the axis [3]. The cruciate ligament is formed by horizontally oriented TAL and vertically oriented longitudinal fibers (Fig. 1.5, Chap. 1). Between the odontoid process and transverse ligament is a thin layer of cartilage, which allows for TAL to move freely during rotation and preserves it from friction damage.
The transverse ligament consists of collagen fibers and is very resistant to breakage. Spence et al. in their original cadaver tests reported stress necessary to TAL rupture in average 580 N (38–104 kg) [29]. Dvorak et al. described experimental failure of TAL only under the force 170– 700 N (corresponding about 17–70 kg) [8]. Restriction of anterior translation of the atlas during flexion of the head is the main function of TAL while still permitting its axial rotation around the dens. The secondary restriction of this motion is secured by atlantodental component of the allar ligaments. The tertiary stabilizers are the accessory atlantoaxial ligaments and capsular ligaments [5, 6]. TAL partially protects the C1-C2 joint also from a rotary dis­location. Posterior translation is prevented by mechanical bracing of the anterior portion of C1 on the dens. The apical ligament due to its laxity probably has no impor­tant function is movement restriction [15]. The IAR for sagittal plane motion is located in the region of the mid­dle third of the dens and for axial rotation in the central axis of the dens, respectively [33].

2.1 CVJ and UCS Axial Load Distribution

The motion characteristics of UCS are unique; neverthe­less, the axial load distribution in CVJ represents another exceptional situation irreproducible in other parts of spine (Fig. 2.1). The weight of the head and the axial
Fig. 2.1 Diagram showing the axial load distribution changing from two to three force vectors at the C2 level. (a) CT in 3D recon-
struction in frontal plane. (b) CT in 3D reconstruction in sagittal plane. Note the consequent hangman type fracture

2.2 Clinical and Morphological Instability of CVJ and UCS

19
Fig. 2.2 Traumatic consequences of atypical axial load distribu-
tion in CVJ and UCS depicted on coronal CT reconstructions. (a) fracture of occipital condyle. (b) lateral C1 mass fracture
loads applied to the head are transmitted through the two occipital condyles to two AO joints. The wedge-shaped lateral masses of C1 transfer the weight downwards with logical tendency to distract laterally. If the C1 ring and TAL act properly, the force is further transmitted to two C2 facets; however, further load distribution in C2 verte­bra is divided from two force vectors into three points at the C2-C3 interface [14]. Most of the load is thus trans­mitted to the C2-C3 disk and less to the posterior C2/C3 facetal joints. The force transmission divergence has some critical places where consequently fractures can arise in the case of overload (Fig. 2.2). First critical place is the atlas. Wedge-shaped lateral masses and the C1 free floating “washer” ring have to buffer the axial force and if overloaded the atlas bursting leading to Jefferson-like fractures can happen (Chap. 10). The second critical location is the C2 pars interarticularis and mainly its isth­mus as locus of minor resistance. The axial force over­load can lead to overstressing of the bone resistance and create the hangman type fractures. Certainly, pre­viously described model situations can be further mod­ified by concomitant rotation, lateral bending of sagittal movement. This physiological CVJ and UCS load dis­tribution has to be respected during reconstruction pro­cedures also.
2.2 Clinical and Morphological Instability of CVJ and UCS
It is of utmost importance to decide whether the UCS is stable or not in order to determine correct treatment
simultaneous with condyle fracture. (c) fracture of lateral facet C2 pillar. Note the TAL avulsion fragment and type III odontoid fracture
choice in various types of pathological lesions in this region.
Clinical stability at the C0-C1 and C1-C2 joints is intimately linked to their functional anatomy. Clinical instability can occur as a result of trauma, degenerative conditions, tumors, inflammation, or surgery; however, its definition is still controversial. Significant disagree­ment exists even among experts. White and Panjabi [35] defined clinical instability as the loss of the ability of the spine under physiologic loads to maintain relationships between vertebrae in such a way that there is neither initial nor subsequent damage to the spinal cord or nerve roots, and in addition, there is neither development of incapacitating deformity nor severe pain. They further defined physiological loads as loads that are incurred during normal activity. Incapacitating deformity was defined as gross deformity that the patient finds intoler­able. Severe pain was defined as pain that cannot be controlled by non-opioid analgesic medications.
In short, it means that the spine is unable to resist the physiological loads without pain, deformity and/or neurological deficit. Such a broad definition, in fact, encompasses nearly all the pathological conditions detectable in UCS.
The definition of mechanical instability is more exactly specified than clinical one.
In fact, whatever static or dynamic position of UCS beyond the physiological limits is detected must be considered as instability.
Static and dynamic radiographic investigations with consecutive exact measurements are providing us information necessary to decide if the spine is stable or not (see Chap. 3).
20
2 Biomechanical Remarks
Table 2.1 Morphological criteria for upper cervical spine
instability [35]
>8° Axial rotation C0-C1 to one side
(measurable only on CT)
>1 mm C0-C1 translation (measurable only on C)
>7 mm Overhang C1-C2 (total right and left, on
anteroposterior radiograph)
>45° Axial rotation C1-C2 to one side
>3 mm C1-C2 translation at anterior atlantodental
interval (AADI)
<13 mm posterior atlantodental interval (PADI)
Avulsed transverse ligament

2.3 Occipitoatlantal Joint Stability and Instability

Stability in this joint is secured mainly by their tight capsules, the anterior and posterior atlanto-occipital membrane, and through the ligaments between the occiput and the axis: the tectorial membrane, allar liga­ments, and apical ligament [13]. Instability in the C0-C1 joints is less common than at the C1-C2 level. It can be result of trauma, rheumatoid arthritis, infec­tion, tumor, or destabilizing surgery.
Vishteh et al. experimentally demonstrated the AO hypermobility caused by resection of occipital con­dyle. They found flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation increased 15.3%, 40.8%, and 28.1%, respectively after 50% condylectomy [32].
The AO joint is relatively unstable in children because of its structural characteristic and ligamentous laxity. Its stability increases in adulthood due to a decrease in elasticity of the ligaments [24]. OA dislo­cations (AOD) can be in the anterior, posterior, or lon­gitudinal directions. Normally, the AO joint sagittal translation should not exceed 1mm, and the distraction distance (CCI) can reach 2 mm maximally on parasag­ittal CT images [19, 20, 36]. From other parameters used to evaluate the AOD, the Powers ratio is most fre­quently used [28]; however, the basion-dental interval (BDI) and basion-posterior axial line interval (BAI) both of which should not exceed 12 mm (“rule of twelve”) are considered as the most exact and AOD­specific measurements [2, 11, 12]. Greater than 8° of unilateral axial rotation as other instability sign can be seriously measured only on superimposed CT scans
[4, 6]. Basilar invagination and/or basilar impression represent the vertical instability. It appears most often in developmental anomalies and rheumatoid arthritis but also can occur in tumors or trauma. Methods of determining vertical CVJ instability are described in detail in appropriate chapters (see Chaps. 3 and 20).

2.4 Atlantoaxial Joint Stability and Instability

The transverse atlantal ligament has a key role in the maintaining AA stability. Especially, allar ligaments but also atlantoaxial accessory ligaments, apical liga­ment, and joint capsules provide secondary security [13, 22]. Instability at the AA joint is often presented as abnormal translation and/or axial rotation; nevertheless, other dislocations are also possible. Mainly TAL limits anterior translation of C1 on C2 as it will be described in further chapters. Fielding et al. [9] noted that anterior AADI is normally not more than 3 mm. AADI of 3–5 mm implies damage of the transverse ligament, and AADI measured 5 mm or more indicates that the acces­sory stabilizing system (especially, the allar ligaments) has been also damaged. A PADI of less than 13 mm may also denote anterior translational instability. The allar ligaments alone are not capable of preventing excessive anterior horizontal displacement if the trans­verse ligament is ruptured. If the odontoid process is hypoplastic, fractured, or resected logically the liga­ments also cannot provide their stabilizing function. Posterior AA translation, despite being rare, can be detected in trauma, tumor, or other pathologies destroy­ing odontoid – TAL catch system as well. Nonetheless, more frequently, the rotational dislocations of different types are diagnosed [3, 4, 6].
The rotation-limiting ability of the alar ligament was investigated by Dvorak et al. [6] in cadaver studies. They observed a mean increase of 9° or 30% of the orig­inal mean rotation divided equally between the C0-C1 (+5°) and C1-C2 (+4°) complexes in axial rotation in response to an alar ligament lesion on the opposite side. The laboratory findings of Dvorak and Panjabi were verified with a clinical CT study of 9 healthy adults and 43 patients with cervical spine instability with conclu­sion that axial rotation of the C0-C1-C2 complex can be increased after trauma-lesions of the alar ligaments [5]. In general, these studies showed that the main function

References

21
of the alar ligament is to limit axial rotation to the con­tralateral side. The transverse ligament also protects the atlantoaxial joint from a rotatory dislocation. Fielding et al. [9] described that with the intact transverse liga­ment, a complete bilateral rotational AA dislocation can occur if 65° or more is reached. With transverse liga­ment disruption dislocation can occur at 45° of rotation already. Total lateral displacement of more than 6.9 mm of the lateral masses of C1 over the C2 facets, as mea­sured on the cadaver tests, determines disruption or avulsion of the transverse ligament [29].

2.5 For Practical Purposes We Can Summarize

The motion of AO-AA joint complex is always coupled. UCS is responsible for 60% of rotation and 40% flexion and extension of the whole cervical spine. Atlas has the widest range of motion of any vertebra in the spine. It is almost freely floating in between the occiput and C2 buffering the axial loads coming from head to spine.
The AO joint mainly provides flexion and extension in the range of 20°, lateral bending is possible up to 10°. Negligible rotation is possible; however, translation of more than 1 mm is considered as pathological. The joint distraction measured on CT should not exceed 2 mm.
The AA joint is responsible for 90% of axial rota­tion of the UCS complex with the average range of rotational motion to one side of 40°. Flexion-extension is possible at an average of 20° and the lateral bending can reach up to 10°.
Whatever parameter measured beyond the physio­logical limits has to be considered as mechanical insta­bility. Performing complex reconstruction of the UCS the load distribution typical for this spine region has to be respected and the non-affected segments spared to preserve as much movement as possible.
References
1. Alund, M., Larsson, S.E.: Three-dimensional analysis of
neck motion. A clinical method. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15, 87–91 (1990)
2. Bono, C.M., Vaccaro, A.R., Fehlings, M., et al.: Measurement
techniques for upper cervical spine injuries: consensus state­ment of the Spine Trauma Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa
1976) 32, 593–600 (2007)
3. Dvorak, J., Froehlich, D., Penning, L., et al.: Functional radiographic diagnosis of the cervical spine: flexion/exten­sion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13, 748–755 (1988)
4. Dvorak, J., Hayek, J., Zehnder, R.: CT-functional diagnostics of the rotatory instability of the upper cervical spine. Part 2. An evaluation on healthy adults and patients with suspected instability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12, 726–731 (1987)
5. Dvorak, J., Panjabi, M.M.: Functional anatomy of the alar ligaments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12, 183–189 (1987)
6. Dvorak, J., Panjabi, M., Gerber, M., et al.: CT-functional diagnostics of the rotatory instability of upper cervical spine.
1. An experimental study on cadavers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12, 197–205 (1987)
7. Dvorak, J., Panjabi, M.M., Novotny, J.E., et al.: In vivo flex­ion/extension of the cervical spine. J Orthop Res 9, 824–834 (1991)
8. Dvorak, J., Schneider, E., Saldinger, P., et al.: Biomechanics of the craniocervical region: the alar and transverse liga­ments. J Orthop Res 6, 452–461 (1988)
9. Fielding, J.W., Cochran, G.B., Lawsing 3rd, J.F., et al.: Tears of the transverse ligament of the atlas. A clinical and biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56, 1683–1691 (1974)
10. Goel, V.K., Clark, C.R., Gallaes, K., et al.: Moment-rotation relationships of the ligamentous occipito-atlanto-axial com­plex. J Biomech 21, 673–680 (1988)
11. Harris Jr., J.H., Carson, G.C., Wagner, L.K.: Radiologic diagnosis of traumatic occipitovertebral dissociation:
1. Normal occipitovertebral relationships on lateral radio­graphs of supine subjects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162, 881– 886 (1994)
12. Harris Jr., J.H., Carson, G.C., Wagner, L.K., et al.: Radiologic diagnosis of traumatic occipitovertebral dissociation:
2. Comparison of three methods of detecting occipitoverte­bral relationships on lateral radiographs of supine subjects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162, 887–892 (1994)
13. Hecker, P.: Appareil ligamenteux occipito-atloidoaxoidien: étude d’anatomie comparée. Arch Anat Hist Embryol 2, 57–95 (1923)
14. Jeszenszky, D., Fekete, T.F., Melcher, R., et al.: C2 prosthe­sis: anterior upper cervical fixation device to reconstruct the second cervical vertebra. Eur Spine J 16, 1695–1700 (2007)
15. Lang, J.: The cranio-cervical junction – Anatomy. In: Voth, D., Glees, P. (eds.) Diseases in the cranio-cervical junction. Anatomical and pathological aspects and detailed clinical accounts, pp. 27–61. Gruyter, Berlin, New York (1987)
16. Lin, R.M., Tsai, K.H., Chu, L.P., et al.: Characteristics of sagittal vertebral alignment in flexion determined by dynamic radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa
1976) 26, 256–261 (2001)
17. Monckeberg, J.E., Tome, C.V., Matias, A., et al.: CT scan study of atlantoaxial rotatory mobility in asymptomatic adult subjects: a basis for better understanding C1-C2 rotatory fixation and subluxation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34, 1292–1295 (2009)
18. Oda, T., Panjabi, M.M., Crisco 3rd, J.J., et al.: Role of tecto­rial membrane in the stability of the upper cervical spine. Clin Biomech 7, 201–207 (1992)
19. Pang, D., Nemzek, W.R., Zovickian, J.: Atlanto-occipital dis­location: part 1 – normal occipital condyle-C1 interval in 89 children. Neurosurgery 61, 514–521 (2007). discussion 521
22
2 Biomechanical Remarks
20. Pang, D., Nemzek, W.R., Zovickian, J.: Atlanto-occipital dislocation – part 2: The clinical use of (occipital) condyle­C1 interval, comparison with other diagnostic methods, and the manifestation, management, and outcome of atlanto­occipital dislocation in children. Neurosurgery 61, 995–1015 (2007). discussion 1015
21. Panjabi, M.M., Duranceau, J., Goel, V., et al.: Cervical human vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of the middle and lower regions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16, 861–869 (1991)
22. Panjabi, M., Dvorak, J., Crisco 3rd, J.J., et al.: Effects of alar ligament transection on upper cervical spine rotation. J Orthop Res 9, 584–593 (1991)
23. Panjabi, M., Dvorak, J., Duranceau, J., et al.: Three­dimensional movements of the upper cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13, 726–730 (1988)
24. Panjabi, M.M., Yue, J.J., Dvorak, J., et al.: Cervical spine kinematics and clinical instability. In: Clark, C.R., Benzel, E.C., Currier, B.L., et al. (eds.) The cervical spine, vol. 4, pp. 55–78. Lippincott, Philadelphia (2005)
25. Pearcy, M.J., Whittle, M.W.: Movements of the lumbar spine measured by three-dimensional X-ray analysis. J Biomed Eng 4, 107–112 (1982)
26. Penning, L.: Normal movements of the cervical spine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 130, 317–326 (1978)
27. Penning, L., Wilmink, J.T.: Rotation of the cervical spine. A CT study in normal subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12, 732–738 (1987)
28. Powers, B., Miller, M.D., Kramer, R.S., et al.: Traumatic anterior atlanto-occipital dislocation. Neurosurgery 4, 12–17 (1979)
29. Spence Jr., K.F., Decker, S., Sell, K.W.: Bursting atlantal fracture associated with rupture of the transverse ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52, 543–549 (1970)
30. Steinmetz, M.P., Mroz, T.E., Benzel, E.C.: Craniovertebral junction: biomechanical considerations. Neurosurgery 66, A7–A12 (2010)
31. Tubbs, R.S., Kelly, D.R., Humphrey, E.R., et al.: The tecto­rial membrane: anatomical, biomechanical, and histological analysis. Clin Anat 20, 382–386 (2007)
32. Vishteh, A.G., Crawford, N.R., Melton, M.S., et al.: Stability of the craniovertebral junction after unilateral occipital con­dyle resection: a biomechanical study. J Neurosurg 90, 91–98 (1999)
33. Werne, S.: Studies in spontaneous atlas dislocation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 23, 1–150 (1957)
34. White, A.P.M.: Kinematics of the spine. Lippincott, Philadelphia (1990)
35. White, A.A., Panjabi, M.M.: Clinical biomechanics of the spine. Lippincott, Philadelphia (1990)
36. Wiesel, S., Kraus, D., Rothman, R.H.: Atlanto-occipital hypermobility. Orthop Clin North Am 9, 969–972 (1978)
37. Wiesel, S.W., Rothman, R.H.: Occipitoatlantal hypermobil­ity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 4, 187–191 (1979)

Special Radiology

O. Choutka and P. Suchomel
3
The anatomy and pathology of the craniovertebral junc­tion (CVJ) may be complex but can be readily visual­ized by a variety of radiological means. The primary modalities include simple plain radiographs, computer tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Each clinical scenario warrants a different imaging modality or, more commonly, a combination of multiple modalities. This chapter describes these imaging modalities as they pertain to the CVJ. Specific pathologies are discussed in separate chapters.
Historically, plain films have been the radiographic gold standard for assessment of the spine in general and form an essential part of spinal evaluation today, more than 100 years since Wilhelm Roentgen shared the first­ever radiograph of his wife’s hand in 1895 [23]. Bony and some soft tissue abnormalities are well visualized on plain films. Lateral cervical radiographs are the most commonly used images in acute evaluation of the cervi­cal spine. For example, they are used while patient is still on the stretcher and further determine the way patient can be handled through their traumatic work up. This is even more important for the unconscious patient. The most commonly missed traumatic injuries are at the lower end of the cervical spine [44] and different projections such as swimmer’s (“flying angel”) view have been designed to enhance the visibility of the cervicothoracic junction. Similarly, multiple views exist to carefully delineate CVJ.
O. Choutka Department of Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 231 Albert Sabin Way, PO Box 670515, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0515, USA
P. Suchomel Department of Neurosurgery, Neurocenter, Regional Hospital Liberec, Husova St. 10, 46063 Liberec, Czech Republic
Lateral projection allows for a good assessment of the alignment of the bony components of the spine and also sagittal balance when performed upright. Any abnormal­ity detected on bony spinal canal (fracture, subluxation) necessitates further examination to determine its cause.
Prevertebral soft tissue swelling can point one to the area of injury as it often indicates a presence of a hematoma secondary to a fracture. Anteroposterior view is commonly obliterated by the jaw; so, open­mouth view films are particularly useful in assessing odontoid pathology as well as the integrity of the atlan­toaxial and atlanto-occipital relationships.
Allesandro Vallebona proposed to represent a single slice of a body part on a radiograph, the so-called tomography, a technique that remained the pillar of radiology until the late 1970s [32]. However, the avail­ability of computers and transverse axial scanning resulted in the development of CT by Godfrey Hounsfield and Allan McLeod Cormack [36]. Since then, multi-slice CT has revolutionized cross-sectional imaging with scanning time down to a single breath hold today. Isotropic voxels allow for two-dimensional reformatting and thus production of high quality three­dimensional images that are particularly useful when assessing complex bony abnormalities of the CVJ. However, the disadvantage of CT is increased radia­tion dose to patients with its ever more prevalent sequelae, particularly in pediatric population [4].
Although myelography with CT allows for excellent neural structure delineation and skeletal correlation, it has been largely replaced by MRI technology credited to Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield who were awarded Nobel Prize in 2003, albeit some controversy surrounds the award [40]. MRI is excellent in evaluation of neural, ligamentous, and disk structures. Sagittal images become particularly useful in CVJ, evaluation of alignment, and assessment of various craniometric lines and angles.
P. Suchomel and O. Choutka, Reconstruction of Upper Cervical Spine and Craniovertebral Junction, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-13158-5_3, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
23
24
ab
3 Special Radiology
Upright films (plain radiography or even MRI) can be a useful adjunct to evaluation of any spinal pathol­ogy that may change under loading conditions of the erect human body [13, 47].
Under appropriate supervision, plain films, CT, and MRI can be obtained in dynamic positions when con­cern for instability exists, thus providing further infor­mation about soft tissue and bony dynamics of the CVJ. Multiple parameters based on static and dynamic films have been developed to grade clinical status or instability of the CVJ.
Vascular anatomy of the CVJ can be evaluated by multiple modalities. Angiography later improved by digitalized subtraction was the standard since its devel­opment by Egas Moniz in 1927 [43]. However, with CT and MR angiography available, only very specific situa­tions [51] would require the patient to be subjected to the potential risks of conventional angiography nowadays.

3.1 Radiographic Data Analysis

Advances in neuroimaging allow for excellent visualization of the CVJ and UCS. Therefore, an effective diagnostic approach is necessary to prevent unnecessary secondary neurological sequelae (e.g., spinal cord injury from a missed traumatic atlanto­occipital dislocation). Plain radiography remains the mainstay of early evaluation of the cervical spine in majority of hospitals. One has to be aware that lateral cervical spine films are centered on the C3 vertebra; therefore, the visualization of CVJ may be skewed by the oblique nature of the atlanto-occipital joints rela­tive to the x-ray beams. Coned down views of the UCS or lateral skull films can clarify this relationship
[8]. Although plain films have been surpassed by the quality of other modalities in this region, there are multiple indirect signs on plain films, pointing to craniocervical junction abnormalities. These include prevertebral soft tissue swelling, lack of override of mastoid processes of the odontoid tip, and disruption of UCS laminae [31]. Once seen, further evaluation is warranted.
Over the years, numerous craniometric parameters (lines, planes, angles, and relationships) have been described and tested in practice to assess radiographic alignment of the structures of CVJ (Table 3.1). Specific osseous anatomical landmarks need to be visualized on imaging to derive those lines/angles to be able to detect and quantify an abnormality. Those include nasion, tuberculum sellae, basion (anterior margin of FM), opisthion (posterior margin of FM), posterior hard palate edge, anterior and posterior arches of atlas, odontoid process, and C2 vertebral body (Fig. 3.1).
3.1.1 Basal/Clival Parameters
The Welcher basal angle can be measured on plain films or mid-sagittal CT or MRI images and is formed by the nasion-tuberculum and tuberculum basion lines [45]. It is a modification to the angle of Landzert, which represents an angle between planum sphenoi­dale and the clivus. Welcher basal angle averages 132° and should always be less than 140° [10]. Lanzert’s angle changes during fetal development and then averages 113.9° in adults [16, 55]. Both angles abnormally increase when the skull base is flat as in platybasia with or without basilar impression (Fig. 3.2).
Fig. 3.1 Relevant anatomical landmarks needed to be visualized
for analysis of CVJ craniometric parameters: 1 nasion, 2 tuber­culum sella, 3 basion (anterior margin of FM), 4 opisthion (posterior margin of FM), 5 posterior hard palate edge, 6 anterior
and 7 posterior arches of atlas, 8 odontoid process, and 9 C2 vertebral body. (a) lateral plain radiogram. (b) CT in sagittal plane. (c) MRI in sagittal plane
3.1 Radiographic Data Analysis
Table 3.1 Craniometric parameters
Line/angle Film Anatomic landmarks/relationship Normal value Pathology
Wackenheim line L Posterior surface of clivus
Chamberlain line L Hard palate to opisthion
McRae line (FM line) L Basion to opisthion and dens Dens below line BI
McGregor line L Hard palate to basiocciput
Ranawat line/criterion L Distance in mid-dens coronal
Redlund-Johnell and Pettersson distance
Fischgold and Metzger AP On AP films. Line between
Klaus posterior fossa height index
Welcher basal angle L Nasion to tuberculum line
Clivus-canal angle L Wackenheim line
Cervico-medullary angle L Measured on MRI, anterior
Basion-dental interval (BDI) L Distance of basion to dens tip <12 mm AOD
Basion-axial interval (BAI) L Perpendicular distance from
Atlanto-dental interval (ADI) L Distance dens to anterior
Posterior ADI (PADI) L Distance dens to posterior Space available for cord <14 mm always
Atlanto-occipital joint axis angle
Condyle-C1 interval (occipito-atlantal joint gap)
Clark Station L Atlantoaxial vertical relationship.
L McGregor line to midpoint
L Perpendicular distance between
AP On AP films. Angle between
AP or L Distance C1 lateral mass
and dens
and dens
and dens
plane, between transverse axis of atlas and midpoint of C2 pedicle
of inferior C2 endplate
the mastoid tips and dens
dens and tuberculum/internal occipital protuberance line
and tuberculum to basion line
and posterior axial line
medullary line and cervical spinal cord line
basion to posterior axial line
C1 arch
C1 arch
two lines parallel to AO joints
and occipital condyle
Anterior atlas ring relative to axis height divided into equal vertical thirds
Tangent to the dens and behind it, may cross its posterior third
Dens protrudes <5 mm above it
Dens protrudes <7 mm above it
>15 mm in males >13 mm in females
>34 mm in males BI >29 mm in females
Dens below the line BI
>30 mm BI
<140° Platybasia
150°–180° BI
>135° BI
<12 mm AOD
<3 mm in adults AAI <5 mm in children
>18 mm no neurology Neurological
compromised
124°–127° Condylar
<2 mm adults AOD <5 mm children Ring of atlas opposite the
upper third of axis
BI
BI
BI
BI
Platybasia
Platybasia
Cranial settling
compromise in AAI
hypoplasia
BI
25
26
Fig. 3.2 Welcher basal angle (nasion-tuberculum-basion angle). (a) Normal angle as measured on plain lateral radiograph.
(b) platybasia measured on 3D CT sagittal reconstruction
3 Special Radiology
Fig. 3.3 The Wackenheim clivus line in a case of atlas settling
and odontoid process slight invagination
3.1.2 Craniocervical Parameters
The Wackenheim clivus line is drawn along the pos­terior surface of clivus and extended inferiorly [52] (Fig. 3.3). The line delineates the relationship between clivus and the odontoid process. In a normal CVJ align­ment, the clivus baseline falls behind the odontoid tip
Fig. 3.4 Clivus-canal (craniovertebral) angle
or may cross the posterior third. Any greater degree of odontoid transaction is seen in basilar invagination or AAD. The angle formed by Wackenheim line and posterior axial line represents the clivus-canal (cranio­vertebral) angle (Fig. 3.4). This angle varies between 150° and 180° depending on flexion/extension position and may represent spinal cord compression in situations of it being less than 150° [50]. The clivus-canal angle
3.1 Radiographic Data Analysis
McGregor
Chamberlain
McRae
27
is important in platybasia/basilar impression descrip­tion as it is not unusual for this angle to become rather acute (even 90°) sometimes without abnormal violation of the above described Wackenheim clivus baseline. Due to common difficulties with visualization of bony structures required for the measurement of clivus-canal angle, particularly after decompressive procedures and the indirect nature of bony parameters attempting to represent neurological compromise, Bundschuh et al. described cervico-medullary angle (CMA) in order to directly demonstrate the degree of brainstem and spinal cord compression in basilar invagination or cranial set­tling in rheumatoid patients [5]. They compared those values with 50 normal patients and concluded that all patients with CMA of less than 135° had evidence of brainstem compression, cervical myelopathy, or C2 nerve root pain. The angle is measured at the intersec­tion of lines drawn parallel to ventral surfaces of the medulla and upper cervical cord on MRI (Fig. 3.5). Multiple publications since then have correlated the CMA with clinical syndrome as well as therapeutic indications and outcomes [39, 54]. However, the largest study defining the normal values of CMA found it to be approximately 158° (139°–175° range) when evaluating 200 patients’ MRI without craniovertebral anomalies [53]. Furthermore, the authors also found the CMA to have an excellent inter- and intra-observer reliability.
Similar to Wackenheim clivus baseline, most of the
original craniometric lines for detection of basilar
invagination or cranial settling in rheumatoid patients were originally based on plain radiographic assessment. The use of CT makes those measurements easier as bony structures can be easily visualized in the midsagittal plane. Historically, the most useful parameters measured on lateral films include Chamberlain, McGregor, and McRae’s lines (Fig. 3.6) as well as the Klaus index. Other criteria are listed in Table 3.1. (Clark station, Redlund­Johnell and Pettersson, Ranawat, Fischgold and Metzger). All of these are less applicable to traumatic situations where distraction, rather than settling, occurs.
Basilar invagination or impression can be diagnosed on plain radiographs when the odontoid tip protrudes at least 2 mm above the Chamberlain line: hard palate to opisthion line [6]; 4.5 mm above the McGregor line: posterosuperior aspect of the hard palate to the most caudal point on the mid-occipital curve line [28]; or any distance above the McRae line: basion to opisthion [29] (Fig. 3.6). Redlund-Johnell criterion represents the distance between McGregor line and inferior C2 verte­bral body measured through its midpoint [38]. Distance of less than 34 mm in males or 29 mm in females is indicative of basilar invagination. Similarly, according to the Ranawat criterion, the distance between the cen­ter of the second cervical pedicle and the transverse axis of atlas along the odontoid process needs to be less than 15 mm in males and 13 mm in females to indicate invagination [37]. On AP transoral plain film, one can draw a line connecting the mastoid tips (Fischgold­Metzger line) and if the odontoid protrudes above it, it again indicates basilar invagination [3, 30]. Using any criterion that requires exact odontoid process visualiza­tion in rheumatoid patients may be difficult. Therefore, criteria that utilized other landmarks than the odontoid process were developed as mentioned above. Indeed, the hard palate was seen in 93% of patients, followed
Fig. 3.5 Cervicomedullary angle as measured on MRI
Fig. 3.6 Schematic drawing of basal lines