[Imaging features of developmental stenosis of atlas with degenerative cervical myelopathy]

Objective: To investigate the imaging features of patients with developmental stenosis of atlas (small atlas) complicated with degenerative cervical myelopathy and to explore the diagnostic criteria of small atlas. Methods: The clinical data of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy treated by posterior cervical laminoplasty and resection of posterior arch of atlas from 2006 to 2020 in the Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Sixteen cases had spinal cord compression at C₁ level after the exclusion of ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) and other pathology. These cases were suspected small atlas (small atlas group). Forty-six cases without posterior arch resection in the same period were selected as control group. The middle sagittal diameter of atlas and the vertical distance from posterior tubercle of atlas to occipitoaxial line under CT in both groups were compared. The sagittal diameter of the spinal canal at the atlas level under MRI, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score for functional state of cervical spine before operation and at last follow-up were also measured. Results: There were 9 males and 7 females in the small atlas group, aged (63±12) years. There were 21 males and 25 females in the control group, aged (57±10) years. The patients in both group were followed-up for at least one year. The sagittal diameter of atlas in the small atlas group was (26.4±3.1) mm, which was significantly smaller than that in the control group [(29.6±2.2) mm, P=0.010]. The vertical distance from the posterior tubercle of atlas to the occipitoaxial line in the small atlas group was larger than that in the control group[(6.79±1.17) mm vs (5.57±1.29) mm, P=0.001]. The diameter of atlas canal in the small atlas group was (8.25±1.44) mm which was significantly smaller than that in the control group [(13.00±1.66) mm, P<0.001]. The JOA score of the small atlas group before operation and at the last follow-up were both slightly lower than that in the control group (both P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the recovery rate of JOA score between the two groups (61.9% vs 66.0%, P=0.066). Among the 16 cases in the small atlas group, 5 cases of occipital-axial connection were located at the posterior 1/3 of the posterior arch of atlas, and 11 cases of occipital-axial connection were completely located at the posterior arch of atlas. Conclusions: The effective sagittal diameter of atlas is smaller in small atlas group which can lead to more severe cervical myelopathy. The presence of a small atlas should be highly suspected when the sagittal diameter of atlas canal is less than 26 mm under CT. The existence of the small atlas should be alert when the occipitalaxial line is located at the dorsal 1/3 or behind of the posterior arch of atlas.