Vol 81, No 4 (2022)
Original article
Published online: 2021-10-26

open access

Page views 4299
Article views/downloads 778
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Volumetric assessment of the sella turcica: a re-evaluation

J. A. Ortega-Balderas1, A. B. Acosta-Flores1, F. J. Barrera1, R. A. Lugo-Guillen1, M. A. Sada-Treviño2, R. A. Pinales-Razo2, A. Quiroga-Garza1, J. H. Martinez-Garza1, R. E. Elizondo-Omaña1, S. Guzman-Lopez1
Pubmed: 34699049
Folia Morphol 2022;81(4):1014-1021.

Abstract

Background: The sella turcica volume is widely measured by the Di Chiro-Nelson method. The purpose is to compare the fidelity of a proposed volumetry method vs. the Di Chiro-Nelson method, using computed tomography (CT) images.
Materials and methods: Morphometric examination of 173 CT scans were included, of which 52.6% were female. The mean age was 53.2 ± 17.6 years. Considering the Di Chiro-Nelson method, two measurements were added for each axis in the CT evaluation: length (central, left, and right), width (central, anterior, and posterior), and height (central, left, and right).
Results: The mean measurements were length: central 10.11 ± 1.44, left 7.45 ± 1.67, right 7.53 ± 1.59; width: central 12.27 ± 2.11, anterior 10.99 ± 1.92, posterior 10.10 ± 1.74; height: central 7.68 ± 1.38, left 7.16 ± 1.35, right 7.40 ± 1.41. A statistically significant difference between sexes was found only in the anterior width (p = 0.01). Using the proposed method, the volume was 342.2 ± 88.5 and 378. 6 ± 113.9 mm3, respectively for females and males (p = 0.02) vs. 476.1 ± 132.4 and 523.8 ± 186.0 mm3 (p = 0.05) using the Di Chiro-Nelson’s method.
Conclusions: Women had significantly smaller sella turcica volume than men. This proposed method considers the sella turcica as a not strictly symmetrical structure and indicates reduced variation between the maximum and minimum values, compared to the Di Chiro-Nelson’s. Our findings may be useful for reassessment the volume of the sella turcica as the measurements indicate a higher precision.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Akay G, Eren I, Karadag O, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of the sella turcica: comparison between cleft lip and palate patients and skeletal malocclusion classes. Surg Radiol Anat. 2020; 42(9): 977–983.
  2. Atci IB, Yilmaz H, Karagoz Y, et al. Prognosis of hormonal deficits in empty sella syndrome using neuroimaging. Asian J Neurosurg. 2018; 13(3): 737–741.
  3. Axelsson S, Storhaug K, Kjaer I. Post-natal size and morphology of the sella turcica in Williams syndrome. Eur J Orthod. 2004; 26(6): 613–621.
  4. Bakiri F, Bendib SE, Maoui R, et al. The sella turcica in Sheehan's syndrome: computerized tomographic study in 54 patients. J Endocrinol Invest. 1991; 14(3): 193–196.
  5. Brown SB, Irwin KM, Enzmann DR. CT characteristics of the normal pituitary gland. Neuroradiology. 1983; 24(5): 259–262.
  6. Chiloiro S, Giampietro A, Bianchi A, et al. Diagnosis of endocrine disease: primary empty sella: a comprehensive review. Eur J Endocrinol. 2017; 177(6): R275–R285.
  7. De Marinis L, Bonadonna S, Bianchi A, et al. Primary empty sella. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005; 90(9): 5471–5477.
  8. Di Chiro G, Nelson KB. The volume of the sella turcica. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1962; 87: 989–1008.
  9. Gibelli D, Cellina M, Gibelli S, et al. Sella turcica bridging and ossified carotico-clinoid ligament: Correlation with sex and age. Neuroradiol J. 2018; 31(3): 299–304.
  10. Hasan H, Alam M, Abdullah Y, et al. 3DCT Morphometric Analysis of Sella Turcica in Iraqi Population. J Hard Tissue Biol. 2016; 25(3): 227–232.
  11. Hlaing Y, Allan JC, Kramer B. A reappraisal of the hypophysial region of the floor of the sella turcica. Clin Anat. 2012; 25(3): 324–329.
  12. Karaca Z, Laway BA, Dokmetas HS, et al. Sheehan syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016; 2: 16092.
  13. Khawaja NM, Taher BM, Barham ME, et al. Pituitary enlargement in patients with primary hypothyroidism. Endocr Pract. 2006; 12(1): 29–34.
  14. Leonardi R, Barbato E, Vichi M, et al. A sella turcica bridge in subjects with dental anomalies. Eur J Orthodont. 2006; 28(6): 580–585.
  15. Leonardi R, Farella M, Cobourne MT. An association between sella turcica bridging and dental transposition. Eur J Orthodont. 2011; 33(4): 461–465.
  16. Mansouri A, Symons S, Schwartz M, et al. Quantitative volumetric analysis post transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma surgery. Can J Neurol Sci. 2012; 39(5): 600–604.
  17. Mazumdar A. Imaging of the pituitary and sella turcica. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2006; 6 Suppl 9: S15–S22.
  18. Muhammed FK, Abdullah AO, Liu Yi. Morphology, incidence of bridging, dimensions of sella turcica, and cephalometric standards in three different racial groups. J Craniofac Surg. 2019; 30(7): 2076–2081.
  19. Muñoz-López JI, Hernández Villegas A, Riveros Gilardi B, et al. Pituitary gland: beyond adenomas [Internet]. https://epos.myesr.org/poster/esr/ecr2017/C-2421 (cited 2021 Feb 10).
  20. Parks JS, Tenore A, Bongiovanni AM, et al. Familial hypopituitarism with large sella turcica. N Engl J Med. 1978; 298(13): 698–702.
  21. Pittayapat P, Jacobs R, Odri GA, et al. Reproducibility of the sella turcica landmark in three dimensions using a sella turcica-specific reference system. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015; 45(1): 15–22.
  22. Rennert J, Doerfler A. Imaging of sellar and parasellar lesions. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2007; 109(2): 111–124.
  23. Roomaney IA, Chetty M. Sella turcica morphology in patients with genetic syndromes: A systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021; 24(2): 194–205.
  24. Sankhe S, Ambadipudi L, Ketkar R, et al. Imaging of sella: Pituitary adenoma and beyond. J Radiat Cancer Res. 2020; 11(1): 3.
  25. Sathyanarayana HP, Kailasam V, Chitharanjan S. Sella turcica-Its importance in orthodontics and craniofacial morphology. Dent Res J. 2013; 10(5): 571–575.
  26. Sherif IH, Vanderley CM, Beshyah S, et al. Sella size and contents in Sheehan's syndrome. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1989; 30(6): 613–618.
  27. Taner L, Deniz Uzuner F, Demirel O, et al. Volumetric and three-dimensional examination of sella turcica by cone-beam computed tomography: reference data for guidance to pathologic pituitary morphology. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2019; 78(3): 517–523.
  28. Tekiner H, Acer N, Kelestimur F. Sella turcica: an anatomical, endocrinological, and historical perspective. Pituitary. 2015; 18(4): 575–578.
  29. Ugurlu M, Bayrakdar IS, Kahraman F, et al. Evaluation of the relationship between impacted canines and three-dimensional sella morphology. Surg Radiol Anat. 2020; 42(1): 23–29.
  30. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology. 2007; 18(6): 805–835.
  31. Venieratos D, Anagnostopoulou S, Garidou A. A new morphometric method for the sella turcica and the hypophyseal fossa and its clinical relevance - PubMed. Folia Morphol (Warsz) [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2020 Sep 5]; Available from: https://pubmed. Folia Morphol. 2005; 64(4): 240–247.
  32. Yalcin ED. Morphometric analysis of sella turcica using cone-beam computed tomography in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2020; 31(1): 306–309.
  33. Yamada T, Tsukui T, Ikejiri K, et al. Volume of sella turcica in normal subjects and in patients with primary hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1976; 42(5): 817–822.
  34. Yasa Y, Bayrakdar IS, Ocak A, et al. Evaluation of sella turcica shape and dimensions in cleft subjects using cone-beam computed tomography. Med Princ Pract. 2017; 26(3): 280–285.
  35. Yasa Y, Ocak A, Bayrakdar IS, et al. Morphometric analysis of sella turcica using cone beam computed tomography. J Craniofac Surg. 2017; 28(1): e70–e74.
  36. Żytkowski A, Tubbs R, Iwanaga J, et al. Anatomical normality and variability: Historical perspective and methodological considerations. Transl Res Anat. 2021; 23: 100105.