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

Users Online : 261304

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 : August | Volume : 16 | Issue : 8 | Page : TC01 - TC05 Full Version

Assessment of Normal Intracranial Parameters of the Sellar Region in Healthy Subjects of South Indian Population: A Retrospective Study


Published: August 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/55466.16729
Deepa Rebecca Korula, Sabari S Ramesh, Senthil Kumar Aiyappan, S Vinayagam, Vamsi Krishna Maddineni, Aishwarya Athani

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 3. Professor, Department of Radiology, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 4. Professor, Department of Radiology, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 5. Postgraduate Student, Department of Orthopaedics, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 6. Postgraduate Student, Department of Radiology, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Senthil Kumar Aiyappan,
Professor, Department of Radiology, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: senthila1@srmist.edu.in

Abstract

Introduction: There is a significant degree of anatomical variation at the level of the sphenoid sinus and sella turcica and a wide range of these values have been reported in literature and ethnic variation has also been found to contribute to this. Thus preoperative imaging of the central skull base with a knowledge of the normal anatomy and measurements in a specific population is imperative to identify these variations and prevent avoidable intraoperative complications.

Aim: To assess the normal intracranial measurements of the intercarotid distance, pituitary fossa width, optic chiasm height, optic chiasm width and the pituitary to optic chiasm distance in healthy subjects of the South Indian population aged between 10 to 80 years and to establish normal reference ranges across the various age groups.

Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted in the Radiology Department at SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, from July 2021 to December 2021. The study included normal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) brains of 700 healthy subjects (378 males and 322 females) in the age range of 10 to 80 years. Subjects were divided into seven groups of 100 subjects for each decade. The variables that were measured included the intercarotid distance, pituitary fossa width, optic chiasm height, optic chiasm width and the pituitary to optic chiasm distance. RStudio version 1.2.1093 was used for statistical analysis and p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Association between age and outcome variables were assessed by Pearson’s correlation coefficient at 95% confidence interval.

Results: The overall mean age was 45.4 years. The overall mean intercarotid distance was 16.2±3.7 mm, optic chiasm width was 13.1±1.6 mm, optic chiasm height was 2.18±2.7 mm, pituitary width was 12.1±2.3 mm, pituitary to optic chiasm distance was 5.7±1.84 mm. The overall pituitary fossa width and pituitary to optic chiasm distance was found to be higher in males (p-value <0.001; p-value=0.03, respectively) than females while there was no significant difference between genders in the rest of the parameters. A low and positive correlation was found between age and the pituitary width, age (r-value=0.175, p-value <0.001) and the pituitary to optic chiasm distance (r-value=0.342, p-value <0.001) and pituitary width and optic chiasm width (r-value=0.236, p-value <0.001). A strong and positive correlation was found between the pituitary width and the intercarotid distance (r-value=0.736, p-value <0.001).

Conclusion: Establishment of normal reference values across various age groups of the South Indian population may prove useful for future reference and improving diagnostic accuracy.

Keywords

Brain, Carotid artery, Magnetic resonance imaging, Measurement, Pituitary gland

The endoscopic endonasal trans-sphenoidal approach to the central skull base is a minimally invasive surgical modality for treating pathologies of the sellar region with decreased postoperative complications and improved patient comfort (1). A substantial degree of anatomical variation is known to exist at the level of the sphenoid sinus and sella turcica. The Internal Carotid Arteries (ICA), optic nerves, cavernous sinuses and surrounding cranial nerves are all vulnerable during this approach. Moreover, anatomical variations at this level have been reported with respect to gender and ethnicity and thus preoperative imaging is important to identify this (2),(3). The cavernous segment of the ICA is an important landmark during these procedures and injury to the ICA may contribute to patient mortality and morbidity (4). The internal carotid arteries can be quite tortuous and the distance separating the medial margin of the internal carotid artery from the lateral surface of the pituitary gland has been reported to vary from 1 to 3 mm (5). Preoperative imaging of the central skull base is thus important to recognise these anatomical variations (1).

The optic chiasm is also an important landmark for interpreting Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) examinations of brain. A small or large chiasm can be an indicator of several disorders (4). Gender and ethnic variation have also been found to affect the pituitary and optic nerve morphology (6). These variables have not been described among the South Indian population. Hence, this study aimed to assess the normal intercarotid distance, pituitary fossa width, optic chiasm width, height and the pituitary to chiasm distance across various age groups in the South Indian population. A knowledge of these parameters will be important and useful for future reference and contribute to diagnosis.

Material and Methods

This retrospective study was conducted in the Radiology Department at SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, from July 2021 to December 2021. Analysis was done from January 2022 to February 2022. The study was approved by Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 3151).

Inclusion and Exclusion criteria: Healthy subjects aged 10 to 80 years with normal MRI brain findings were included in the study. The main indication for these MRI brain studies was for complaints of headache. Any significant findings on the MRI brain were excluded from the study. Adult patients who were pregnant, had a history of endocrine disturbances or were on drug therapy were also excluded from the study.

Out of the 700 subjects, 378 were males and 322 were females. All MRIs were performed on a 1.5 T Siemens machine and the study variables were measured as mentioned in (Table/Fig 1).

The MRI protocol included coronal T2 weighted (TR:8870 TE:142 ST:3 mm) and sagittal T1 weighted sections (TR:500 TE:9 ST:5 mm) of the brain. (Table/Fig 2)a,(Table/Fig 2)b,(Table/Fig 2)c illustrates how the variable was measured.

All the measurements were obtained and interpreted by two radiologists with five and seven years experience. Pituitary width, optic chiasm width, optic chiasm height, intercarotid distance and pituitary to optic chiasm distance was considered as outcome variables. Age group and gender was considered as explanatory variable.

Statistical Analysis

Mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum was used to describe the outcome variables. Independent t-test was used to compare mean between two groups. One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) along with Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) posthoc test was used to compare mean between more than two groups. Association between age and outcome variables was assessed by Pearson correlation coefficient at 95% confidence interval. Similarly, association between outcome variables were also assessed by Pearson coefficient at 95% confidence interval. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant and was calculated by Independent sample T-test and ANOVA. RStudio version 1.2.1093 was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 700 individuals were included in the study (100 in each age group). The mean age among 11 to 20 years age group was 16.03 years. In 21 to 30 years age group it was 25.96 years, in 31 to 40 years age group it was 35.25 years, in 41 to 50 years it was 45.89 years, in 51 to 60 years it was 55.85 years, in 61 to 70 years it was 64.41 years and in 71 to 80 years it was 74.18 years respectively. The overall mean age was 45.4 years. Among 700 individuals, 378 (54%) were males and 322 (46%) were females.

The mean values of the pituitary width, optic chiasm width and height, intercarotid distance and pituitary to optic chiasm distance across all the age groups were 12.1±2.3, 13.1±1.6, 2.18±0.27, 16.2±3.7 and 5.70±1.84, respectively (Table/Fig 3).

The mean pituitary width was found significantly higher in males as compared to females (p-value <0.001). The mean pituitary to optic chiasm distance was also found to be significantly higher in males as compared to females (p-value=0.03) (Table/Fig 4).

Tukey HSD posthoc test showed that mean pituitary width was statistically significantly higher in the age group 51-60 years, 61-70 years and 71-80 years as compared to the age group 11 to 20 years, 21 to 30 years and 31 to 40 years respectively (p-value <0.001). The mean pituitary to optic chiasm distance was found statistically significantly lower in the age group 11 to 20 years as compared to the age group 31 to 40 years, 41 to 50 years, 51 to 60 years, 61 to 70 years and 71 to 80 years respectively (p-value <0.001) (Table/Fig 5).

Among individuals aged 21 to 40 year, 41 to 60 years and 61 to 80 years, male were found to have statistically significantly higher pituitary width in each age group as compared to females (p-value <0.05). Among individuals aged 41 to 60 years, females were found to have statistically significantly higher optic chiasm height as compared to males (p-value=0.019) whereas males were found to have statistically significantly higher OC width as compared to females (p-value=0.047) (Table/Fig 6).

There was no statistically significant difference in the intercarotid distance and pituitary to optic chiasm distance between males and females across the individual age groups (Table/Fig 7).

(Table/Fig 8) shows that the correlation between age and Optic Chiasm (OC) width and height and the intercarotid distance was found to be statistically insignificant (p-value >0.05). There was low and positive correlation between age and the pituitary width (r-value=0.175; p-value <0.001) as well as the pituitary to optic chiasm distance (r-value=0.342; p-value <0.001). (Table/Fig 9),(Table/Fig 10),(Table/Fig 11) shows the measurement of the variables in few cases of study.

Between the variables, there was a positive correlation between pituitary width and optic chiasm width (r-value=0.236, p-value <0.001), optic chiasm width and inter-carotid distance (r-value=0.259, p-value <0.001) and the pituitary width and intercarotid distance (r=0.736, p-value <0.001) (Table/Fig 12).

Discussion

The Intercarotid Distance (ICD) was measured in the present study as the narrowest distance between the medial walls of the cavernous segments of the ICA on both sides. This study found the mean intercarotid distance to be 16.2 mm±3.7 mm with a range of 3-27 mm across all age groups with no significant difference between males and females. This is in keeping with the majority of reported studies who found no significant difference between genders (5),(7),(8),(9). Few significantstudies however did report that the intercarotid distance was found to be higher in males than females (9),(10).

There was a statistically no significant correlation of age with the ICD. Farimaz M et al., had also found no significant correlation of the intercarotid distance with age however there was a negative correlation of the inter-cavernous distance with age in the Turkish population, which was also reported by Polat SO et al., (7),(8).

The mean values for the intercarotid distance at the sellar region in healthy individuals reported in the literature have a wide range, varying from 12 mm to 18 mm (3),(11),(12),(13). This may be related to the method used to measure the distance and the ethnical differences between the study populations. Nunes CF et al., found the mean intercarotid distance at its horizontal portion at the sellar region was 19.41±3.00 mm with a statistically significant difference between males and females (males=21.17 mm, females=17.26±2.52 mm; p-value= 0.0014) (12). Gupta T, found the mean intercarotid distance measured 13.7 mm with a minimum inter carotid distance of 7.63 mm (4). A study done by Polat SO et al., on 292 subjects in the Turkish population found the intercavernous distance to be 14.1 mm in females and 13 mm in males with a negative correlation with age (7). Farimaz M et al., also reported a mean intercavernous distance of 14.1±2.8 mm in females and 13.0±2.8 mm in males with no statistically significant difference between males and females and they found the ICD decreases with age (8). Dao Trong P et al., found that the ICD was up to 2.4 mm smaller in the Caucasian cohorts as compared to African American/Asian cohorts which indicate that racial disparities regarding the sellar anatomy should be considered in patients undergoing pituitary surgery (14). Comparison of measured ICD is shown in (Table/Fig 13) (15),(16),(17),(18),(19),(20),(21),(22),(23),(24),(25),(26).

There was statistically no significant difference in the mean OC width and mean OC height between males and females (p-value >0.05). There was also no significant difference in the mean OC width and mean OC height across age groups (p-value >0.05). These findings were in keeping with previously reported studies (6),(7),(9).

In the study by Polat SO et al., the means of the optic chiasm height and width values were found to be 2.80±0.7 mm and 13.13±1.37 mm respectively in healthy males and 2.80±0.49 mm and 12.82±1.27 mm respectively in healthy females of the Turkish population (7). They found no significant difference in these values between the genders or across various age groups (7). Bilal D et al., found the mean of width of the optic chiasm was 13.32±1.28 mm and the mean of the optic chiasm height was 2.53±0.18 mm in the Sudanese population with the maximum value seen in the sixth decade and no significant difference in gender or across different age groups (6). A study on the American population showed the mean optic chiasm width was 14±1.68 mm across age groups 18 to 82 years with a decrease in width with increasing age however no significant difference between genders (27).

The pituitary width has been found to have a positive correlation with the intercavernous distance as reported by Polat SO et al., (7). There was a low and positive correlation of age with the pituitary width, that is, with an increase in age there was a mild increase in the pituitary fossa width as reported in literature (28). Chauhan P et al., found a mean width of 8.4 mm in females and 7.3 mm in males of the North Indian population with a statistically significant difference between the genders (28). They found the size of the sella in the older age group was larger than the younger population, in keeping with our study. A study on 73 subjects of the Nepalese population found that the sella turcica had a mean length of 8.375 mm, anteriorposterior diameter of 7.029 mm, and depth of 10.13 mm (29). They found the dimensions of the sella turcica increased with age till the age of 80 years and then decreased and the length and depth of sella turcica were higher in males compared to the females, similar to present study findings (29). The increase in the pituitary fossa width with age was attributed to age related atrophic changes and similar results were also reported in other plain radiograph studies of the sella in Indian and other populations (30),(31),(32).

The pituitary to optic chiasm distance has not been well described. Knowledge of the normal reference values for this entity may help in improving diagnostic accuracy. This distance may be increased in conditions such as empty sella or decreased in conditions such as pituitary hyperplasia, pituitary tumours, meningiomas, gliomas. The optic chiasm may be in normal location, prefixed or postfixed (33).

Authors found a low and positive correlation between age and the pituitary to optic chiasm distance, that is, as the age increased the distance also increased (p-value <0.05). This could be attributed to atrophy of the brain with increase in the CSF spaces and sulci with increasing age. Between the variables there was found to be good correlation between the pituitary width and intercarotid distance, ie, as the pituitary width increased, the intercarotid distance also was found to increase which has also been described in literature (7) and a low and positive correlation between the pituitary width and the optic chiasm width.

The current study was unique in the fact that authors were able to compare many of the intracranial parameters related to the sella and establish certain reference values across the age groups in the South Indian population which has not been described previously in literature and which may aid in diagnosis and preoperative management.

Limitation(s)

This was a retrospective study with relatively small sample size across the age groups hence the results may not be accurately generalisable to the entire population. There is scope for further research with larger sample sizes with inclusion of the other populations of India.

Conclusion

Present study was able to establish certain reference values in the South Indian population for the various intracranial parameters which may help in image interpretation and improving diagnostic accuracy, however the wide range of normal values and difference between genders must be kept in mind.

References

1.
Faraj MK, Sagban WJ. Endoscopic transsphenoidal approach to skull base lesions. Neurosciences (Riyadh). 2018;23(1):35-38. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Pilat AV, Gottlob I, Sheth V, Thomas MG, Proudlock FA. Gender- and ethnicity- related differences in optic nerve head topography in healthy Indian and Caucasian participants. Neuroophthalmology. 2014;38(4):205-12. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Shrestha GK, Pokharel PR, Gyawali R, Bhattarai B, Giri J. The morphology and bridging of the sella turcica in adult orthodontic patients. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):45. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Gupta T. An anatomical study of inter carotid distances in the sellar region with a surgical perspective. Brazilian Journal for Morphological Sciences. 2009;26:23-26.
5.
Rhoton AL, Hardy DG, Chambers SM. Microsurgical anatomy and dissection of the sphenoid bone, cavernous sinus and sellar region. Surg Neurol. 1979;12(1):63-04.
6.
Bilal D. Assessment of optic chiasm measurements in abnormal MRI brain. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS). 2018;17(7):50-56.
7.
Polat SÖ, Öksüzler FY, Öksüzler M, Uygur AG, Yücel AH. The determination of the pituitary gland, optic chiasm, and intercavernous distance measurements in healthy subjects according to age and gender. Folia Morphologica. 2020;79(1):28-35.
8.
Farimaz M, Çelik HH, Ergun KM, Akgöz A, Urfali B. The morphometry of the cavernous part of the internal carotid artery. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2019;78(1):54-62.
9.
Yamashita S, Resende LA, Trindade AP, Zanini MA. A radiologic morphometric study of sellar, infrassellar and parasellar regions by magnetic resonance in adults. Springerplus. 2014;3:291. Doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-291. PMID: 26034660; PMCID: PMC4447716. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Ahmadipour Y, Lemonas E, Maslehaty H, Goericke S, Stuck BA, El Hindy N, et al. Critical analysis of anatomical landmarks within the sphenoid sinus for transsphenoidal surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273(11):3929-36. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Wiener SN, Rzeszotarski MS, Droege RT, Pearlstein AE, Shafron M. Measurement of pituitary gland height with MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1985;6(5):717-22.
12.
Nunes CF, Cabral GAPS, Mello Junior JO de, Lapenta MA, Landeiro JA. Pituitary macroadenoma: analysis of intercarotid artery distance compared to controls. Arq Neuro-Psiquiatr. 2016;74:396-04. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Choi MH, Kim HS, Lee BY, Chung SC. A study on age- and gender-dependent differences in distance and angle between the internal carotid artery and basilar artery. Technol Health Care. 2020;28(Suppl 1):321-26. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Dao Trong P, Jesser J, Schneider T, Unterberg A, Beynon C. Interracial anatomical differences in the transsphenoidal approach to the sellar region. Br J Neurosurg. 2020;01-04. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Fujii K, Chambers SM, Rhoton AL. Neurovascular relationships of the sphenoid sinus. A microsurgical study. J Neurosurg. 1979;50(1):31-39. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Ozcan T, Yilmazlar S, Aker S, Korfali E. Surgical limits in transnasal approach to opticocarotid region and planum sphenoidale: An anatomic cadaveric study. World Neurosurg. 2010;73(4):326-33. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Abuzayed B, Tanriover N, Gazioglu N, Ozlen F, Cetin G, Akar Z. Endoscopic anatomy and approaches of the cavernous sinus: Cadaver study. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010;32(5):499-08. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Aktas U, Yilmazlar S, Ugras N. Anatomical restrictions in the transsphenoidal, transclival approach to the upper clival region: A cadaveric, anatomic study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013;41(6):457-67. Doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.011. Epub 2012. PMID: 23257317. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Perondi GE, Isolan GR, de Aguiar PH, Stefani MA, Falcetta EF. Endoscopic anatomy of sellar region. Pituitary. 2013;16(2):251-59. Doi: 10.1007/s11102-012-0413-9. PMID: 22847021. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Cebula H, Kurbanov A, Zimmer LA, Poczos P, Leach JL, De Battista JC, et al. Endoscopic, endonasal variability in the anatomy of the internal carotid artery. World Neurosurgery. 2014;82(6)e759-e764. ISSN 1878-50. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Scotti G, Yu CY, Dillon WP, Norman D, Colombo N, Newton TH, et al. MR imaging of cavernous sinus involvement by pituitary adenomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;151(4):799-06. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Knappe UJ, Jaursch-Hancke C, Schönmayr R, Lörcher U. Assessment of normal perisellar anatomy in 1.5 T T2-weighted MRI and comparison with the anatomic criteria defining cavernous sinus invasion of pituitary adenomas. Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2009;70(3):130-36. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Zada G, Agarwalla PK, Mukundan S, Dunn I, Golby AJ, Laws ER. The neurosurgical anatomy of the sphenoid sinus and sellar floor in endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurosurg. 2011;114(5):1319-30. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Sasagawa Y, Tachibana O, Doai M, Akai T, Tonami H, Iizuka H. Internal carotid arterial shift after transsphenoidal surgery in pituitary adenomas with cavernous sinus invasion. Pituitary. 2013;16(4):465-70. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Zhang Y, Tian Y, Song J, Li Y, Li W. Internal carotid artery in endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(6):1866-69. [crossref][PubMed]
26.
Carrabba G, Locatelli M, Mattei L, Guastella C, Mantovani G, Rampini P, et al. Transphenoidal surgery in acromegalic patients: Anatomical considerations and potential pitfalls. Acta Neurochirurgica. 2013;155(1):125-30. [crossref][PubMed]
27.
Yilmazlar S, Kocaeli H, Eyigor O, Hakyemez B, Korfali E. Clinical importance of the basal cavernous sinuses and cavernous carotid arteries relative to the pituitary gland and macroadenomas: Quantitative analysis of the complete anatomy. Surg Neurol. 2008;70(2):165-74. Doi: 10.1016/j.surneu.2007.06.094. Epub 2008. PMID:18262607. [crossref][PubMed]
28.
Chauhan P, Kalra S, Mongia SM, Ali S, Anurag A. Morphometric analysis of sella turcica in North Indian population: A radiological study. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2017;2(2):521-26. [crossref]
29.
Makaju G, Joshi B, Chand R. Assessment of the size of sella turcica among Nepalese population by computed tomography. Nepalese Journal of Radiology. 2019;9:40-47. [crossref]
30.
Chaitanya B, Pai KM, Chhaparwal Y. Evaluation of the effect of age, gender, and skeletal class on the dimensions of sella turcica using lateral cephalogram. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(2):195-99. Doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_805_17. PMID: 29875560; PMCID: PMC5968682. [crossref][PubMed]
31.
Nagaraj T, Shruthi R, James L, Keerthi I, Balraj L, Goswami R. The size and morphology of sella turcica: A lateral cephalometric study. Journal of Medicine, Radiology, Pathology and Surgery. 2015;1:03-07. [crossref]
32.
Valizadeh S, Shahbeig S, Mohseni S, Azimi F, Bakhshandeh H. Correlation of shape and size of sella turcica with the type of facial skeletal class in an Iranian group. Iran J Radiol. 2015;12(3):e16059. [crossref]
33.
Griessenauer CJ, Raborn J, Mortazavi MM, Tubbs RS, Cohen-Gadol AA. Relationship between the pituitary stalk angle in prefixed, normal, and postfixed optic chiasmata: An anatomic study with microsurgical application. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014;156(1):147-51.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/55466.16729

Date of Submission: Feb 04, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Apr 15, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Jun 03, 2022
Date of Publishing: Aug 01, 2022

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

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Feb 09, 2022
• Manual Googling: May 26, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Jun 20, 2022 (14%)

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