» Articles » PMID: 29457744

Optimal Safe Implantation Corridors in Feline Cervical Vertebrae (C2-T1): CT Study in 16 Domestic Shorthair Cats

Overview
Date 2018 Feb 20
PMID 29457744
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to define safe corridors for the optimal placement of bicortical implants in the feline cervical spine (C2-T1) using CT.

Methods: CT images of feline cervical spines (n = 16) were reviewed retrospectively. Multiplanar reconstructions were used to define the optimal safe corridors. Safe corridors were defined by their angle of insertion, width and length. The insertion point within the vertebral body was also described. Vertebral measurements were compared between vertebrae using multilevel linear regression, and left and right measurements within vertebrae were compared with the paired samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A P value <0.05 was considered significant for all analyses.

Results: The safe corridor insertion points were located within the caudal third of the vertebral body in C2 (mean cranial vertebral ratio 0.73) and in the cranial third of the vertebral bodies from C3-T1 (mean cranial vertebral ratios 0.34-0.38). Mean safe corridor widths ranged from 1.04 mm in C2 to 2.30 mm in C7 and T1. The mean right and left optimal angles of implantation were, respectively, 21.79° and 21.49° for C2, 45.26° and 46.19° for C3, 51.48° and 51.04° for C4, 53.52° and 54.30° for C5, 56.36° and 56.65° for C6, 63.40° and 64.92° for C7, and 53.90° and 52.90° for T1. There were statistically significant differences between vertebrae in almost every measurement.

Conclusions And Relevance: Cervical vertebral safe corridors in cats are narrow and differ to those reported in dogs. Safe corridors are located in the caudal third of C2 and cranial third of the C3-T1 vertebral bodies. Current recommendations for implant sizes should be reviewed, as 1.5-2 mm implants would be oversized for bicortical implantation in most of the feline cervical vertebrae.

Citing Articles

Assessment of the accuracy of patient-specific drilling guides for cervical (C5-C6) and lumbar (L4-L5) vertebrae in cats.

Costa R, de Moraes G, Ferreira R, Neto R, Nobile M, de Sa Rocha T Vet Med (Praha). 2025; 70(1):11-19.

PMID: 39990158 PMC: 11841666. DOI: 10.17221/73/2024-VETMED.


Evaluation of Radiological and Anatomical Features of Cervical Vertebrae in Adult Persian Cat.

Derakhshi P, Alizadeh S, Hosseinchi M Vet Med Sci. 2024; 10(6):e70109.

PMID: 39520102 PMC: 11549373. DOI: 10.1002/vms3.70109.

References
1.
Wilson L . Repair of sacral fractures using pins and polymethylmethacrylate (six cases). Aust Vet J. 2015; 93(9):311-8. DOI: 10.1111/avj.12310. View

2.
Marioni-Henry K, Vite C, Newton A, Van Winkle T . Prevalence of diseases of the spinal cord of cats. J Vet Intern Med. 2005; 18(6):851-8. DOI: 10.1892/0891-6640(2004)18<851:podots>2.0.co;2. View

3.
Bali M . Diagnosis and surgical management of a fractured atlas in a cat. J Feline Med Surg. 2011; 13(4):280-2. PMC: 10832813. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfms.2010.11.015. View

4.
Garcia J, Milthorpe B, Russell D, Johnson K . Biomechanical study of canine spinal fracture fixation using pins or bone screws with polymethylmethacrylate. Vet Surg. 1994; 23(5):322-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.1994.tb00491.x. View

5.
Sutton A, Muir K, Jones A . Two knees or one person: data analysis strategies for paired joints or organs. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997; 56(7):401-2. PMC: 1752405. DOI: 10.1136/ard.56.7.401. View