open access
Comparison of the ossification centre images between standard computed tomography and micro-computed tomography
Affiliations- Department of Emergency, Inner Mongolia People’s Hospital, Hohhot, China, China
- Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
- Human Anatomy Teaching and Research Section (Digital Medical Centre), Inner Mongolia Medical University Basic Medical College, Hohhot, China
- Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China
- Department of Haematology, Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China
- Department of Imaging Diagnosis, Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China
- Medical Imaging Department, Inner Mongolia People’s Hospital, Hohhot, China
open access
Abstract
Background: Based on standard computed tomography (CT) and micro-CT scan axis images, our study aims to analyse the incidence of variation of non-fusion ossification centre in the base of the odontoid and its anatomical structure characteristics, to compare ossification centre images and analyse the possible features of the ossification centre that can influence adult odontoid fractures.
Materials and methods: Fifty cases were selected for standard cervical CT of the normal axis bone (second cervical) anatomy to calculate the incidence of variation of the non-fusion ossification centre in the base of the odontoid and the indexes of associated anatomical structure. In addition, five dry bone samples with the odontoid were chosen for micro-CT to analyse the clear anatomic structure of the trabecular bone in the ossification centre.
Results: Incidence of variation of non-fusion ossification centre in the base of the odontoid was 28%. In the non-ossification group, the mean sagittal diameter of the base of odontoid (SDBO, mm) was 7.64 ± 1.29 mm, the mean transverse diameter of the base of odontoid (TDBO, mm) was 7.14 ± 1.55 mm, and the SDBO:TDBO ratio was 1.1 ± 0.22. In the ossification group, the mean SDBO was 7.7 ± 1.15 mm, the mean TDBO was 7.38 ± 1.32 mm, and the SDBO:TDBO ratio was 1.07 ± 0.21. There was no significant difference in the associated indexes between the ossification and non-ossification groups (p > 0.05). Micro-CT revealed the micro-structure of trabecular bone in the ossification centre and the close relationship between the trabecular bone and the odontoid. One existing non-ossification centre in the base of the odontoid was found in the five odontoid images. The trabecular bone indexes chosen in the target area of the ossification centre were weaker than those in other areas.
Conclusions: The variation rate of the non-fusion ossification centre in the base of the odontoid is relatively high and may be an important factor in the aetiology of type II and III odontoid fractures.
Abstract
Background: Based on standard computed tomography (CT) and micro-CT scan axis images, our study aims to analyse the incidence of variation of non-fusion ossification centre in the base of the odontoid and its anatomical structure characteristics, to compare ossification centre images and analyse the possible features of the ossification centre that can influence adult odontoid fractures.
Materials and methods: Fifty cases were selected for standard cervical CT of the normal axis bone (second cervical) anatomy to calculate the incidence of variation of the non-fusion ossification centre in the base of the odontoid and the indexes of associated anatomical structure. In addition, five dry bone samples with the odontoid were chosen for micro-CT to analyse the clear anatomic structure of the trabecular bone in the ossification centre.
Results: Incidence of variation of non-fusion ossification centre in the base of the odontoid was 28%. In the non-ossification group, the mean sagittal diameter of the base of odontoid (SDBO, mm) was 7.64 ± 1.29 mm, the mean transverse diameter of the base of odontoid (TDBO, mm) was 7.14 ± 1.55 mm, and the SDBO:TDBO ratio was 1.1 ± 0.22. In the ossification group, the mean SDBO was 7.7 ± 1.15 mm, the mean TDBO was 7.38 ± 1.32 mm, and the SDBO:TDBO ratio was 1.07 ± 0.21. There was no significant difference in the associated indexes between the ossification and non-ossification groups (p > 0.05). Micro-CT revealed the micro-structure of trabecular bone in the ossification centre and the close relationship between the trabecular bone and the odontoid. One existing non-ossification centre in the base of the odontoid was found in the five odontoid images. The trabecular bone indexes chosen in the target area of the ossification centre were weaker than those in other areas.
Conclusions: The variation rate of the non-fusion ossification centre in the base of the odontoid is relatively high and may be an important factor in the aetiology of type II and III odontoid fractures.
Keywords
odontoid, ossification centre, trabecular bone, computed tomography, micro-computed tomography
About this articleTitle
Comparison of the ossification centre images between standard computed tomography and micro-computed tomography
Journal
Issue
Article type
Original article
Pages
141-147
Published online
2019-05-20
Page views
2663
Article views/downloads
493
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Folia Morphol 2020;79(1):141-147.
Keywords
odontoid
ossification centre
trabecular bone
computed tomography
micro-computed tomography
Authors
W. Wang
X. Wang
X. Ren
L. Chen
Z. Li
X. Li
P. Zhang
J. Gao
B. Su
S. Zhang
References (24)- Anderson LD, D'Alonzo RT, Anderson LD, et al. Fractures of the odontoid process of the axis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974; 56(8): 1663–1674.
- Aydin K, Cokluk C. The segments and the inferior boundaries of the odontoid process of C2 based on the magnetic resonance imaging study. Turk Neurosurg. 2008; 18(1): 23–29.
- Boutroy S, Bouxsein ML, Munoz F, et al. In vivo assessment of trabecular bone microarchitecture by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005; 90(12): 6508–6515.
- Cho EJ, Kim SH, Kim WH, et al. Clinical results of odontoid fractures according to a modified, treatment-oriented classification. Korean J Spine. 2017; 14(2): 44–49.
- Colo D, Schlösser TPC, Oostenbroek HJ, et al. Complete remodeling after conservative treatment of a severely angulated odontoid fracture in a patient with osteogenesis imperfecta: a case report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(18): E1031–E1034.
- Graham RS, Oberlander EK, Stewart JE, et al. Validation and use of a finite element model of C-2 for determination of stress and fracture patterns of anterior odontoid loads. J Neurosurg. 2000; 93(1 Suppl): 117–125.
- Grauer JN, Shafi B, Hilibrand AS, et al. Proposal of a modified, treatment-oriented classification of odontoid fractures. Spine J. 2005; 5(2): 123–129.
- Jagannathan J, Dumont AS, Prevedello DM, et al. Cervical spine injuries in pediatric athletes: mechanisms and management. Neurosurg Focus. 2006; 21(4): E6.
- Julien TP, Schoenfeld AJ, Barlow B, et al. Subchondral cysts of the atlantoaxial joint: a risk factor for odontoid fractures in the elderly. Spine J. 2009; 9(10): e1–e4.
- Kandziora F, Chapman JR, Vaccaro AR, et al. Atlas fractures and atlas osteosynthesis: a comprehensive narrative review. J Orthop Trauma. 2017; 31 Suppl 4: S81–S89.
- Kellinghaus M, Schulz R, Vieth V, et al. Forensic age estimation in living subjects based on the ossification status of the medial clavicular epiphysis as revealed by thin-slice multidetector computed tomography. Int J Legal Med. 2010; 124(2): 149–154.
- Megan EG, Michael PK. Fractures of the axis: a review of pediatric, adult, and geriatric injuries. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016; 9(4): 505–512.
- Niemeier TE, Dyas AR, Manoharan SR, et al. Type III odontoid fractures: A subgroup analysis of complex, high-energy fractures treated with external immobilization. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2018; 9(1): 63–67.
- O'Brien WT, Shen P, Lee P. The Dens: normal development, developmental variants and anomalies, and traumatic injuries. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2015; 5: 38.
- Ouyang PR, He XJ, Cai X. [Classification of upper cervical fractures: a review]. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2017; 30(9): 872–875.
- Perilli E, Parkinson IH, Reynolds KJ. Micro-CT examination of human bone: from biopsies towards the entire organ. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2012; 48(1): 75–82.
- Peyrin F. Evaluation of bone scaffolds by micro-CT. Osteoporos Int. 2011; 22(6): 2043–2048.
- Ritman EL. Current status of developments and applications of micro-CT. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2011; 13: 531–552.
- Ryan MD, Henderson JJ. The epidemiology of fractures and fracture-dislocations of the cervical spine. Injury. 1992; 23(1): 38–40.
- Smith HE, Kerr SM, Fehlings MG, et al. Trends in epidemiology and management of type II odontoid fractures: 20-year experience at a model system spine injury tertiary referral center. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010; 23(8): 501–505.
- Sung MJ, Kim KT, Hwang JH, et al. Safe Margin beyond Dens Tips to Ventral Dura in Anterior Odontoid Screw Fixation : Analysis of Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Scan of Odontoid Process. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2018; 61(4): 503–508.
- Tang XM, Liu C, Huang K, et al. [Analysis of a three-dimensional finite element model of atlas and axis complex fracture]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2018; 98(19): 1484–1488.
- Tassani S, Perilli E. On local micro-architecture analysis of trabecular bone in three dimensions. Int Orthop. 2013; 37(8): 1645–1646.
- Watanabe M, Sakai D, Yamamoto Y, et al. Analysis of predisposing factors in elderly people with type II odontoid fracture. Spine J. 2014; 14(6): 861–866.
