Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 88621

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : July | Volume : 16 | Issue : 7 | Page : AC01 - AC05 Full Version

Morphometry of Adult Human Trachea and its Clinical Implications: A Cadaveric Study in Northern India


Published: July 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/55145.16574
Stuti Mahajan, Anupama Mahajan, Monika Lalit, Poonam Verma

1. Junior Resident, Department of ENT, Government Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab, India. 2. Professor, Department of Anatomy, SGRDIMSR, Amritsar, Punjab, India. 3. Professor, Department of Anatomy, SGRDIMSR, Amritsar, Punjab, India. 4. Professor, Department of Anatomy, SGRDIMSR, Amritsar, Punjab, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Anupama Mahajan,
Professor, Department of Anatomy, SGRDIMSR, Mehta Road, Vallah, Amritsar, Punjab, India.
E-mail: anupamasgrd@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: There is a wide variation in different dimensions of trachea in same age group as well as in different age groups in both sexes. Besides anthropometry, the study of these morphometric variations is of profound clinical importance as it may help the pulmonologists to understand the aetiology of several pulmonary diseases like bronchitis, emphysema, pulmonary fibrosis and tuberculosis.

Aim: To determine the variations in the dimensions of human trachea in the cadavers of age group 20-70 years in Northern India.

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Anatomy, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, Punjab, India, during March 2019 to December 2021. A total of 40 tracheas were obtained from adult human cadavers which were included in present study by convenience sampling. The trachea was dissected with the larynx and principal bronchi and measurements were taken. Data collected was saved on Microsoft excel and was analysed by calculating percentages, mean and Standard Deviation (SD).

Results: Mean length of trachea was 109.25 mm, mean subcarinal angle was 75.45°. Mean anteroposterior diameter, transverse diameter, mean height and distance between posterior ends of rings was 16.70 mm and 18.10 mm, 4.53 mm and 12.15 mm respectively and mean of inter-ring distance between 1st-2nd, 5th-6th, 10th-11th, 15th-16th Tracheal rings was 1.12 mm.

Conclusion: The present study revealed a wide variation in different dimensions viz. length, transverse and anteroposterior diameters, mean height, inter-tracheal ring distance and the subcarinal angle. Accurate anatomical knowledge of the variations is essential for understanding the pathophysiology and management of different airway disorders and in reconstructive surgery of tracheobronchial tree.

Keywords

Dimensions, Pulmonary fibrosis, Sleep apnoea, Subcarinal angle, Tracheal rings, Variations

The trachea is an unpaired hollow tube that descends as a continuation of the larynx from C6 to the upper border of T5 vertebra where it divides into right and left principal bronchi (1). There is a wide variation in different dimensions of trachea in same age group as well as in different age groups in both sexes (2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8). There is wide variation in dimensions of trachea described in different textbooks and by different authors in different journals (1),(9). Gray’s Anatomy by Standring states that adult trachea is 10-11 cm long, external transverse diameter is 2 cm in adult males and 1.5 cm in adult females, lumen has an average transverse diameter of 12 mm (1). Schwartz in Text book “Principles of Surgery” stated that range of tracheal length is 10-13 cm, 18-22 semicircular cartilage rings, 2.3 cm transverse diameter and 1.8 cm anteroposterior diameter (9).

Besides anthropometry, knowledge of morphometric variations is essential as it may help the pulmonologists to understand the aetiology of several pulmonary diseases like bronchitis, emphysema, pulmonary fibrosis and tuberculosis (10). The present study was taken up to measure different dimensions of trachea (length, subcarinal angle, anteroposterior and transverse diameter, height of rings and distance between posterior ends of tracheal rings) which can be helpful in pulmonary physiology and anaesthesiology to conduct some maneuvers like endotracheal intubation, diagnostic and therapeutic bronchoscopic procedures with skill and perfection. Though the study measuring the dimensions of trachea are available form different parts (3),(4),(5),(7),(11) but the studies related to this area are sparse. Hence, present study was conducted to determine the variations in the dimensions of human trachea in the cadavers of age group 20-70 years in Northern India.

Material and Methods

The present cross-sectional study was done on 40 tracheas obtained from adult human cadavers in the Department of Anatomy, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, Punjab, India, from March 2019 to December 2021.

Inclusion criteria: Adult human cadavers aged between 20-70 years were included.

Exclusion criteria: Cadavers aged more than 70 years and less than 20 years, mutilated cadavers, cadavers having sternal and tracheal deformities, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Corona positive cadavers were excluded.

Sample size: A total of 40 trachea, obtained from adult human cadavers were enrolled for the study by convenience sampling.

Cadaver was placed in supine position on dissection table with extended neck. Skin incision was given from symphysis menti to xiphoid process of sternum. Lateral incision was given from symphysis menti along the lower border of mandible and from xiphoid process upwards and laterally along the floor of axilla. After reflecting skin, superficial fascia, deep fascia, muscles (sternohyoid, sternothyroid and sternocleidomastoid), the sternoclavicular joint was disarticulated, sternum was reflected downward after cutting the ribs at the costal cartilages with the bone cutter. Viscera like lungs, heart, thyroid gland were removed along with great vessels, nerves and prevertebral muscles. The trachea was dissected with the larynx and principal bronchi (11). The measurements were taken as follows:

Tracheal length: It was measured with vernier caliper from the lower border of cricoid cartilage to the apex of subcarinal angle where the trachea was bifurcating (Table/Fig 1).

Total number of tracheal rings were measured in the mid-sagittal line.

Subcarinal angle was measured with the help of thin wire and goniometer and was rechecked by protractor (Table/Fig 2).

Anteroposterior diameter of trachea was measured in the mid-sagittal plane and transverse diameter was measured in the mid-coronal plane with the help of Vernier caliper by taking horizontal section of trachea at the level of 1st, 5th, 10th and 15th tracheal rings (Table/Fig 3), (Table/Fig 4).

Height and distance between posterior ends of rings was measured with the help of vernier caliper at the level of 1st, 5th, 10th and 15th tracheal rings (Table/Fig 5).

Inter-ring distance between 1st and 2nd, 5th and 6th, 10th and 11th, 15th and 16th rings was measured in midline with the help of vernier caliper (Table/Fig 6).

In the specimens having less than 15 rings, measurements were taken only at the level of 1st, 5th and 10th tracheal rings (12). Vernier calliper of the company airspace with least count 0.02 mm was used to measure length, breadth, height and diameter of the trachea.

Statistical Analysis

The data were statistically analysed for calculating the range, mean and SD using manual computation.

Results

In this study, 40 adult human cadavers were aged between 20-70 years. It was found that the range of tracheal rings was 14-19 and 17 was the most frequent value. The mean length of trachea from lower border of cricoid cartilage to carina was 105.25±6.03 mm, range being 90.50-121.20 mm.

Mean subcarinal angle was 77.45±13.15°, range being 47-122o. Mean of inter-ring distance between 1st-2nd, 5th-6th, 10th-11th and 15th-16th tracheal rings was 1.12±0.51 mm and, range 0.10-3.50.

The mean anteroposterior dimension of trachea was 16.07 mm ranging from 8.90 to 23.75 mm and mean transverse diameter was 18.10 mm (ranging from 12.75 to 25.75 mm). Mean height of tracheal ring was 4.53 mm (ranged between 2.10-14.04 mm). in present study mean distance between posterior ends of rings was 12.15 mm (ranging from 5.30 to 24.80 mm) (Table/Fig 7), (Table/Fig 8).

Discussion

The mean length of trachea from lower border of cricoid cartilage to carina was 105.25 mm, range being 90.50-121.20 mm with standard Deviation 6.03. Strenberg (13) in the Text book of diagnostic surgical pathology 3rd edition described the length of trachea to be 11 cms. Kamel KS et al., measured the length of trachea in vivo using high resolution chest CT scan in the age group of 22-88 and documented that the length was 102.8±9.9 mm (6). Munguia DA carried out a study of 44 Mexican cadavers in the age group of 18-65 years and found that tracheal length was 9.1±0.9 cm in males and 8.6±0.6 cm in females (7). Begum T et al., measured the length of 47 trachea of Bangladeshi adult males after dividing the cases into four age groups and found that mean length was 8.73±0.21 cm in group A (20-29 years), 9.53±0.46 cm in group B (30-39 years), 9.63±0.23 cm in group C (40-49 years) and 9.79±0.39 cm in group D (50-59 years), overall mean was 9.32±0.42 cm (14).

Regarding number of tracheal rings, Cinar U et al., (15) in their study on 75 male trachea and Kim IKS et al., (4) in their study on 33 male tracheas reported that the number of tracheal rings were 13.3±1.6 and 16.8±0.3 respectively. Rosen FS studied 50 specimens and observed that trachea on average contains 13.3 rings (16). Michael J told that for every two cms there were two rings (17). In the present study, the range of tracheal rings was 14-19 which was in accordance with the study of Kamel LS et al., (6), Munguia DA (7), Mridula C and Krishnaiah M (18), and Toremalm NG (19) who reported the range of tracheal rings was 14-19, 14-21, 14-24 and 14-20 respectively.

Kamel KS et al., measured subcarinal angle of bifurcation between first two cms of inferior wall of the right and left principal bronchi in 60 specimens using HRCT scans and reported that the range of angle was 36-121o with mean 78±20o (6). Haskin PH and Goodmann LR concluded that the mean subcarinal angle was 60.8±11.8o in the radiographs of 47 males and 53 females in 21-80 years of age group (20). Chunder R et al., measured the subcarinal angle on the photograph along the inferior border of principal bronchi after dividing 87 cadavers (51 males and 36 females) into 5 age groups and reported that the mean angle in males was 64.3o in 0-15 years, 56.4o in 16-25 years, 58.4o in 26-40 years, 57.1o in 41-55 years and 59.5o in more than 55 years of age (21).

As depicted in (Table/Fig 8), mean anteroposterior diameter, transverse diameter, mean height and distance between posterior ends of rings was 16.70 mm and 18.10 mm, 4.53 mm and 12.15 mm respectively and mean of Inter-ring distance between 1st-2nd, 5th-6th, 10th-11th and 15th-16th Tracheal rings was 1.12 mm. According to Standring S (1), the external transverse diameter of trachea is 2 cm in adult males and 1.5 cm in adult females while its internal transverse diameter is 1.2 cm in live adults. Kim IKS et al., in their study on 33 male Korean bodies reported anteroposterior and transverse diameter at the level of 1st tracheal ring- 21.97±0.61 mm and 22.54±0.41 mm, 5th ring- 22.40±0.48 mm and 20.84±0.51 mm, 10th ring-19.85±0.40 mm and 20.60 0.35 mm, 15th ring- 19.60±0.54 mm and 22.12±0.57 mm respectively (4). Kamel KS et al., in their study on 60 specimens using high resolution CT scans reported tracheal anteroposterior diameter from sagittal slices was 21.4±3.2 mm, range (12.7-28.6 mm) and transverse diameter from coronal slices was 25.7±3.7 mm, range (17.3-34.5 mm) (6). Munguia DA (7) in their study on 44 cadavers reported anteroposterior diameter in midsagittal plane was 1.8±0.3 cm, range (1.4-2.5 cm) and transverse diameter in mid-coronal plane was 1.9±0.2 cm, range (1.6-2.3 cm) (7). Mridula C and Krishnaiah M measured diameter of trachea in 16 patients with small peripheral pulmonary nodules at four horizontal positions by special window technique (window width 500 Hu, window level 100 Hu) and reported that tracheal diameter at thoracic entrance was 18.9±1.7 mm, at the level of aortic arch was 18.8±1.6 mm, at the level of two cms higher than carina of trachea was 19.0±1.6 mm and at narrowest trachea was 18.4±1.5 mm respectively (18). Strenberg (13) described the tracheal diameter as 2-2.5 cms. Chunder R et al., recorded upper external transverse diameter (width) and upper anteroposterior diameters (depth) at the junction of upper third and middle third of trachea in 51 male human trachea and reported that the results were 1.95 cm and 1.35 cm in 0-15 years, 2 cm and 1.6 cm in 16-25 y, 2.1 cm and 1.7 cm in 26-40, 2 cm and 1.6 cm in 41-55 Y, 2cm and 1.9 cm in >55 years age groups of males respectively (21). Lower external transverse diameter and lower anteroposterior diameters at the junction of middle third and lower third of trachea were 1.85 cm and 1.05 cm in 0-15 years, 2 cm and 1.6 cm in 16-25 years, 2.1 cm and 1.6 cm in 26-40 years, 2 cm and 1.5 cm in 41-55 years, 2.1 cm and 1.5cm in >55 years age groups respectively (21). Solanki S and Zarana A measured anteroposterior and transverse diameters of trachea on 28 cast of trachea prepared by luminal cast plastination and reported mean AP diameter was 1.70 cms (range 1.16-2.25 cm) and mean transverse diameter was 1.78 cm (range 1.42-2.1 cm) (22). Hampton T et al., reported that transverse diameter of trachea was 1.75±0.26 cm (23). Li C et al., observed Tracheal diameter 1.99 cms, range (1.2-2.5 cms) (24). Breatnach E et al., studied X-rays of 808 patients and found tracheal diameter 2.5-2.7 cms in males and 2.1-2.3 cm in females (25).

Regarding vertical height of tracheal ring, Kim IKS et al., reported vertical height of tracheal ring in 33 male specimens at the level of 1st ring- 6.47±0.36 mm, 2nd ring -3.71±0.19 mm, 5th ring- 3.97±0.19 mm, 10th ring- 4.31±0.18 mm, 15th ring- 4.66±0.37 mm (4). Kamel KS et al., in their study on 10 cadavers reported the vertical height of tracheal ring 4.6±0.1 mm, range 2.3-12.2 mm (6). Munguia DA reported 4.5±0.3 mm, range 3.0 -9.0 in accordance with the present study where the vertical height in 40 specimens was 4.53±2.6 mm (7).

Kim IKS et al., reported inter- ring distance between 1st and 2nd was 1.98±0.19 mm, between 5th and 6th ring 1.63±0.11 mm, between 10th and 11th ring 1.61±0.16 mm, between 15th and 16th ring 1.81±0.20 mm (4). Kamel KS et al., (6) in their study on 10 cadavers noted that mean of inter -ring distance was 1.6±0.2 mm in accordance of present study where the mean of inter -ring distance 1.12±0.4 mm (6).

Kim IKS et al., (4) reported the distance between posterior ends of rings -at the level of 1st ring 13.19±0.72 mm, 5th ring- 11.61±0.84 mm, 10th ring- 12.14±0.83 mm, 15th ring -15.53±1.07mm. Present study showed distance between posterior ends of rings at the level of 1st, 5th and 10th tracheal rings was 12.15±3.42 mm which was very near to the study of Kamel et al., (6) who reported the mean distance between posterior ends of rings at the level of 1st, 5th and 10th tracheal rings was 15.9±2.3 mm.

The comparison of parameters such as- tracheal length, subcarinal angle, antero-posterior and transverse diameter with previous studies are shown in (Table/Fig 9), (Table/Fig 10), (Table/Fig 11) (3),(4),(5),(6),(7), (11),(12),(14),(15),(18),(20),(21),(22),(26),(27),(28).

The differences in parameters in the preset study may be due to cultural differences, ethnic or genetic variations ,and environmental or geographical change. Changes may occur in the tracheal dimensions like tracheabronchomegaly or tracheomalacia where there is widening of trachea or in tracheobonchopathia where there is generalised narrowing of trachea. So, the knowledge of these parameters on human trachea is very useful in such conditions as well as in conduction of endotracheal intubation in both diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

Limitation(s)

The present study does not include different age groups and sex on which the authors are still working to carry forward this study.

Conclusion

There is wide variation in the dimensions of human trachea in same age group as well as in different age groups. The mean length of trachea was 105.25 mm, mean subcarinal angle was 77.45o and mean of inter-tracheal ring distance was 1.12 mm in the present study. The study of these morphometric variations is of profound clinical importance as it may help the clinicians to understand the aetiology of several pulmonary diseases and the surgeons to deal with resection and reconstruction of the tracheobronchial tree. Knowledge of length and diameter of trachea also helps the clinicians in choosing the proper size of tracheostomy tube in emergency situations and in proper selection of endotracheal tube. Accurate anatomical knowledge of the variations is essential for knowing pathophysiology and management of different airway disorders.

References

1.
Standring S. Gray’s anatomy. 40th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders company; 2008. pp. 989-1007.
2.
Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMR. In: Clinically oriented anatomy. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2014. pp. 1045.
3.
Shaik Z, Ramulu V, Hanimann KS. A study on anatomical dimensions of bronchial tree. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016;4(7):2761-65. [crossref]
4.
Kim IKS, Lim JM, Chai OH, Han EH, Kim HT, Song CH. Morphomettric study of Trachea in Korean. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2015;28(4):185-195. [crossref]
5.
Sharma N, Khan GA, Pandit R. A Cadaveric study of length of trachea in Nepalese population of various age groups. J of universal college of Med Sci. 2017;5(1):17-21. [crossref]
6.
Kamel KS, Lau G, Stringer MD. In vivo and in vitro morphometry of the human trachea. Clin Anat. 2009;22:571-79. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Munguia DA. Tracheal dimensions in the Mexican population. Cir. 2011; 79(6):505-10.
8.
Wani TM, Buchh B, AlGhamdi FS, Jan R, Tumin D, Tobias JD. Tracheobronchial angles in children: Three dimensional computed tomography based measurements. Paediatric Anaesthesia. 2018; 28(5): 463-67. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Schwartz SI, Rusch VW, Ginsberg RJ. Chest wall, pleura, lung and mediastinum. Principles of Surgery, 7th edition. McGraw-Hill: 1999;764.
10.
Althnazio R. Airway disease: Similarities and differences. Clinics. 2012;67(11):1335-43. [crossref]
11.
Datta D, Kundu D, Pal S, Das A. morphometric study of adult human trachea in west Bengal population. Int J Med Res Rev. 2019;7(1):36-42. [crossref]
12.
Premakumar Y, Griffin MF, Szarko M. Morphometric characterization of human tracheas: Focus on cartilaginous ring variation. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11:32. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Strenberg. Tracheobronchopathia- A clinical and spirometric study. Chest J. 1981;80(6):706-09. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Begum T, Naushaba H, Alam J, Paul UK. Alim Aj. Cadaveric length of trachea in Bangladesh adult male. Bangladesh J Anat. 2009;7(1):42-44. [crossref]
15.
Cinar U, Halezeroglu S, Okur E. Tracheal length in adult human: The results of 100 autopsies. Int J of Morphology. 2016;34(1):232-36. [crossref]
16.
Rosen FS. Study of broncial tree. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112(10);869-76. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Michael J, Robin TC, Richard GA, Peter BM. Slide tracheoplasty for the management of complete tracheal rings. J of Pediatric Surgery. 2003;38(6):928-34. [crossref]
18.
Mridula C, Krishnaiah M. The study of bronchial tree. Int J Pharm Biosci. 2011;2(1):166-172.
19.
Toremalm NG. Airflow pattern and ciliary activity in Trachea. Laryngoscope. 1972;82(1):108-14. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Haskin PH, Goodmann LR. Normal tracheal bifurcation angle. AJR. 1982;139:879. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Chunder R, Nandi S, Guha R, Satyanaryana N. A morphometric study of human trachea and principal bronchi in different age groups in both sexes. Nepal Med Coli J. 2010;12(4):207-14.
22.
Solanki S, Zarana A. Morphometric analysis of human trachea in adult Gujrat region by luminal cast plastination. J of Res Med Den Sci. 2015;3(3);235-37. [crossref]
23.
Hampton T, Armstrong S, Russell W. J. The left main bronchus. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2000;28:540-42. [crossref] [PubMed]
24.
Li C, Zhang C, Wang H, Cao J, Mi W. Measurement and analysis of tracheobronchial tree in Chinese population using CT. Plos One. 2015;10(6)e 0130239. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Breatnech E, Abott GC, Fraser RG. Dimensions of normal human trachea. AJR. 1984;142:903. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Leader JK. Measurement of trachea. AJR AM J Roentgenol AVG. 2004;183(2);315-21.
27.
Coppola V, Vallone G, Coscioni E, Coppola M, Maraziti G, Alfinito M, et al. Normal value of tracheal bifurcation angle. Radiol Med. 1998;95(5):461-65.
28.
Daroszewski M, Szpinda M, Wisniewski M, Flisinski P, Szpinda A, Woyniak A, et al. Tracheo-bronchial angles in the human fetus- an anatomical, digital and statistical study. Med Sci Monit Basic Res. 2013;19:194-200. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/55145.16574

Date of Submission: Jan 22, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Feb 19, 2022
Date of Acceptance: May 03, 2022
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? No
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? No
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jan 25, 2022
• Manual Googling: May 03, 2022
• iThenticate Software: May 28, 2022 (7%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com