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
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
Original article / research
Full Version
Morphometric Analysis of Dry Typical Thoracic Vertebrae: A Cross sectional Study from Telangana, India
Correspondence Address :
Dr. K Ephraim Vikram Rao,
Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri-508116, Telangana, India.
E-mail: dr.ephraimvikram1@gmail.com
Introduction: Morphometric measurements of dry typical thoracic vertebrae play an important role clinically in managing scoliosis, performing laminectomies, guiding pedicle screw fixation, and in designing spinal implants or prostheses for traumatic injuries. A precise understanding of typical thoracic vertebral dimensions is essential when planning thoracic spine surgery. Most of the screw and implant sizes are derived from Caucasian data, and hence may not be appropriate for all populations. Therefore, developing region specific morphometric data for typical thoracic vertebrae is crucial.
Aim: To establish the normative morphometry of typical thoracic vertebrae in the population of Telangana region to guide spinal instrumentation.
Materials and Methods: The present cross sectional study involved 80 adult dry typical thoracic vertebrae collected from the Department of Anatomy, Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences, Vikarabad, Telangana, India. The study was conducted from October 2024 to February 2025. Various parameters including dimensions of the vertebral body, diameter of the vertebral foramen, pedicle dimensions and angles, laminae dimensions and length of spinous process were measured using vernier callipers. The statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21. Range, Mean and standard deviations were calculated for all the parameters and Student’s t-test was performed to compare the right and the left-sides.
Results: The mean transverse and anteroposterior diameters of the bodies were 31.49±3.35 mm and 22.05±3.53 mm, respectively. The vertebral foramen transverse and anteroposterior diameters were 15.61±1.34 mm and 13.75±1.26 mm, respectively. The transverse angle of the pedicle was 14.55±3.72° on the right side and 14.95±3.95° on the left-side. The sagittal angle of the pedicle was on the right-side 10.54±2.74° and 10.36±2.90° on the left-side. The mean laminar height and the thickness on the right-side were 21.03±2.42 mm and 06.18±1.06 mm, respectively and on the left-side were 20.96±2.09 mm and 06.35±1.03 mm, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference observed between the right & left-sides of the pedicle and laminar dimensions and also chord length as the p-value was more than 0.05. Hence, bilateral symmetry was observed.
Conclusion: There were few variations observed in Telangana regional data collected in the current study namely transverse diameter of vertebral bodies, pedicle chord lengths, and sagittal and transverse angles were greater than in previous studies. These parameters are crucial for spinal surgeries and also the current study provides baseline data for the Telangana population that could help in improving instruments accuracy, reducing the risk of misplaced pedicle screws and neural injury.
Implants, Lamina, Laminectomy, Pedicle, Screw, Spinal
The vertebral column in human beings is made up of 33 vertebrae namely seven cervical, 12 thoracic, five lumbar, five sacral fused to form one single bone, the sacrum and four coccygeal fused to form one single bone, the coccyx. Among the 12 thoracic vertebrae 2nd to 8th vertebrae possess same features and are categorised as typical thoracic vertebrae whereas the 1st thoracic vertebra and 9th to 12th thoracic vertebrae possess variations in their features and categorised as atypical thoracic vertebra (1),(2). The thoracic vertebral body is bigger than the cervical vertebrae and smaller than the lumbar vertebrae and have spinous processes that are pointed and inclined downward. Articulation with the ribs is one of their key distinguishing characteristics (3).
Understanding the morphometry of vertebrae is crucial for various applications in the surgical field, including surgical planning, implant design, and the diagnosis of spinal disorders and selecting proper size of the instrumentation to minimise the risk of complications (4). Thoracic spine surgeries provide unique challenges to surgeons due to the narrow vertebral canal diameter, the close relation to important vascular structures including the aorta especially from T3 to T7 and narrow pedicles (5).
The most advanced approach to arthrodesis is transpedicular screw fixation, in which the pedicles of adjacent vertebrae are fixed with screws. The most common method of transpedicular screw fixation of the dorsal spine is due to its stable construction and its biomechanical benefits. However, there is a chance that improper screw placement could cause damage to the nearby neurovascular tissue (6). The widespread adoption of pedicle screw fixation in the thoracic spine has made the morphometric analysis of thoracic pedicles essential for surgeons performing this procedure. Use of improper size screws can lead to complications such as pedicle cortex perforation, pedicle fracture, or nerve root injury (7),(8).
Spinal diseases such as thoracic spondylotic myelopathies lead to spastic paresis in the lower limbs, and abnormalities of the bladder and bowel which are brought about by spinal cord compression. The main etiological factors contributing in the thoracic cord compression are ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, ossification of the ligamentum flavum, degenerative thoracic spondylotic myelopathy, and vertebral disk herniation (9). The degenerative changes are mainly due to mechanical stress on the adjacent vertebral bone bridges (10). Thoracic spine stenosis is treated either by anterior decompression or posterior decompression methods to relieve symptoms and lead a better life (11). A detailed morphometry of thoracic vertebrae is very much essential to carry out these procedures.
Though there are numerous studies on vertebral morphometry across different global populations, region-specific morphometric data for the typical thoracic vertebrae remains insufficient in the Telangana region of India (12),(13),(14),(15). Most available literature either aggregates data from all over Indian populations or focuses on cervical and lumbar regions, overlooking the thoracic spine’s unique anatomical and biomechanical significance. Most of the studies in India focused on pedicle morphometry only while other parameters were neglected (1),(16). There is a lack of comprehensive studies evaluating multiple morphometric parameters. Thus, the present study was focused on multiple morphometric parameters such as dimensions of the vertebral body, canal, pedicle, lamina, chord length, spinous process and the pedicular angles in the Telangana region of India.
The present cross-sectional study was conducted from October 2024 to February 2025 in the Department of Anatomy, Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences, Vikarabad, Telangana, India. The study was carried out on dry bones. So, ethical permission was not required. A total of 80 dried typical thoracic vertebrae of unknown sex were collected from the departmental bone bank.
Inclusion criteria: The adult intact typical thoracic vertebrae (2nd to 8th) were included in the study.
Exclusion criteria: Vertebrae with any bony spurs, pathologies or anomalies and damaged vertebrae were excluded from the study.
Total of 80 dried typical thoracic vertebrae of unknown sex were collected from the departmental bone bank.
Study Procedure
Various morphometric parameters were measured using vernier callipers and the angles were measured using goniometer. The vertebral body dimensions, pedicle dimensions, laminae dimensions, and vertebral foramen diameters, were measured. Each measurement was taken thrice by two observers to overcome intra-observer and inter-observer bias and the average was recorded.
A) Vertebral body dimensions: The anterior and posterior thickness or height, transverse diameter and the anteroposterior diameters were measured using vernier callipers (12).
(i) Anterior thickness/height: Distance measured between the superior and inferior surfaces of the body in the midsagittal plane anteriorly (Table/Fig 1)a.
(ii) Posterior thickness/height: Distance measured between the superior and inferior surfaces of the vertebral body in the midsagittal plane posteriorly (Table/Fig 1)b.
(iii) Transverse diameter: The maximum transverse diameter of the vertebral body on its superior surface (Table/Fig 2)a.
(iv) Anteroposterior diameter: Distance measured between the anterior and posterior borders of the superior surface of the vertebral body in mid sagittal plane (Table/Fig 2)b.
B) Vertebral foramen: The transverse and the anteroposterior diameters were measured using vernier callipers (13).
(i) Transverse diameter: The maximum transverse diameter of the vertebral foramen (Table/Fig 3)a.
(ii) Anteroposterior diameter: The anteroposterior diameter of the vertebral foramen in mid sagittal plane (Table/Fig 3)b.
C) P Pedicle dimensions: The height, width of the pedicle, the chord length and interpedicular distance were measured using vernier callipers. The sagittal angle of the pedicle and the transverse angle of the pedicle were measured using goniometer (14).
(i) Pedicle width: Distance measured between the medial surface of pedicle to the lateral surfaces of the pedicle at its midpoint, at the right angle to the long axis of the pedicle (Table/Fig 4)a.
(ii) Pedicle height: Distance measured between superior margin of the pedicle to inferior margin of the pedicle at its midpoint (Table/Fig 4)b.
(iii) Chord length: Distance measured between the posterior cortical entrance point of the pedicle to the anterior cortex of the vertebral body along the long axis of the pedicle (Table/Fig 4)c.
(iv) Interpedicular distance: Distance between the medial surfaces of the right and the left vertebral pedicles measured at the level of the isthmus (Table/Fig 4)d.
(v) Pedicular transverse angle: The angle measured between the pedicle axis and a line parallel to the vertebral midline measured in the transverse plane (Table/Fig 4)e.
(vi) Pedicular sagittal angle: The angle measured between the superior border of the vertebral body in the midsagittal plane and the pedicle axis (Table/Fig 4)f.
D) L Laminae dimensions: The height and thickness were measured using vernier callipers (15).
(i) Lamina height: Maximum distance between the superior and inferior borders of the lamina (Table/Fig 5)a.
(ii) Lamina thickness: Maximum distance between the anterior and posterior surfaces of the lamina (Table/Fig 5)b.
Statistical Analysis
The data was analysed using SPSS version 21. For all the parameters, quantitative data was presented with descriptive measures such as range, mean and standard deviation. To compare the dimensions on the right and the left-sides were analysed using paired student t-test. The p-value 0.05 was considered as level of significance at the 95% confidence interval.
The mean transverse diameter of the vertebral body was greater than the anteroposterior diameters of the bodies which were 31.49±3.35 mm and 22.05±3.53 mm respectively. The anterior height of vertebral body was lesser than the posterior height of bodies which were 17.32±1.56 mm and 18.66±1.76 mm, respectively. The vertebral foramen transverse diameter was greater than the anteroposterior diameter which was 15.61±1.34 mm and 13.75±1.26 mm, respectively. The interpedicular distance was ranging between 13.35 to 18.6 mm and the average distance was 15.91±1.19 mm. The range, mean and standard deviations of vertebral body dimensions, vertebral canal dimensions and the interpedicular distance were recorded in (Table/Fig 6).
The range, mean and standard deviations of pedicle and lamina dimensions were recorded in (Table/Fig 7). There was no significant difference between the right and the left-sides in relation to pedicle height, pedicle width, the chord length, laminar height and laminar thickness (Table/Fig 7),(8).
The transverse angle of the pedicle was on the right-side 14.55±3.720 and on the left-side 14.95±3.950. The sagittal angle of the pedicle was 10.54±2.740 on the right-side and 10.36±2.90 on the left-side. There was no significant difference observed between the right and the left-sides.
Morphometric analysis of typical thoracic vertebrae is essential as there are ethnic variation in the sizes of the vertebral body, vertebral foramen, pedicle and the lamina. Morphometric studies are of significance and particularly useful in clinical applications and interventions, such as spinal surgeries and artificial vertebral implant designing (10),(11),(12). Advanced modern radiological imaging techniques such as Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) may not provide the detail and accuracy provided by the exact morphometric analysis of dry bone thoracic vertebrae (17). Several previous studies were carried out in dry bones, cadavers, and also using radiological imaging techniques such as CT and MRI (8),(17),(18). The vertebral shape and morphological and pathological assessment are possible with radiological techniques but its intrinsic spatial resolution limitations and propensity for image errors can mask minute anatomical differences that are essential for a thorough morphometric analysis (17). Thus, the present study was carried out on morphometric analysis of dry typical thoracic vertebrae in Telangana population.
The morphometric analysis of thoracic vertebral bodies plays an important role in the biomechanical stability and neurological integrity of the spine that critically influences the surgical outcomes of spinal deformities such as scoliosis, kyphosis and kyphoscoliosis, as well as the management of thoracic myelopathy (19),(20).
Thoracic myelopathy results from compression of spinal cord due to ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament or metastasis of tumour that needs to be decompressed (21). Most spinal metastasis occurs in the vertebral body, and the dural sac that causes only few millimeters of mobility. For all these conditions decompression is the only solution which can be performed in various approaches such as ventral or anterior decompression, dorsal or posterior decompression and circumferential decompression (22). The vertebral anterior thickness, posterior thicknesses, anteroposterior and transverse diameter of the present study were compared with the other studies in (Table/Fig 9) (12),(23),(24). These measurements were instrumental in surgical planning to achieve better postoperative outcome.
The mean dimensions of the vertebral body of the present study are similar to the study by Moulya BNH et al., who conducted study on coastal population of Andhra Pradesh (23). The vertebral body dimensions are higher in the present study when compared to a study by Hari NY et al., in Uttar Pradesh population on the other hand the dimensions were lower than the Marathwada population of Maharashtra region (12). The vertebral body size shows variation in different regions of the India.
The mean transverse diameter and the anteroposterior diameter of the vertebral foramen in the present study were 15.61±1.34 mm and 13.75±1.26 mm, respectively. In the present study the anteroposterior diameter was in the range between 11.98 to 14.83 mm. The thoracic vertebral canal stenosis that causes compression of spinal cord is considered to be having less than 10mm anteroposterior diameter (25).
The vertebral arch is connected to the body through pedicles which are the strongest parts and are entirely made up of compact bone with a small core of cancellous bone. The pedicles act as a strut to transmit forces between the vertebral body and the arch (16). The pedicle dimensions, chord length and sagittal angle and transverse angle play an important role in spinal surgeries such as transpedicular screw fixation and transpedicular bone grafting (26). Size selection of screw and other instrumentations depends on the morphometric parameters of the pedicle. In most of the studies pedicle width and height were only measured whereas in the present study the chord length, sagittal angle and transverse angle were also measured as these have a very important role in pedicle screw fixation surgeries. The dimensions of pedicle were compared with other studies in (Table/Fig 10) [12,14,26]. The pedicle height and width were similar with other studies but the chord length was observed to be little longer when compared to the other study by Mwakikunga A et al., in Malawain population. The sagittal angle and transverse angle of the pedicles were little higher in the present study when compared to the other study by Mwakikunga A et al., in Malawain population (14).
Ossification of ligamentum flavum and ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament causes myelopathies leading to compression of spinal cord. The posterior decompression method is carried out by performing laminectomy where the lamina of the vertebrae is removed (27),(28),(29). On the other hand, the neoplasms and the metastasis of the spine also cause vertebral stenosis (30). Morphometric analysis of the laminae of typical thoracic vertebrae is important for surgeons while performing laminectomy in cases of vertebral canal stenosis, ossification of ligaments around it and neoplasms of thoracic spine (27),(28),(29),(30). The laminar dimensions of the present study were compared with other studies and the dimensions were similar with other studies (Table/Fig 11) (12),(15). Hari NY et al., found a significant difference between the right and the left laminar thicknesses but in the present study no significant difference was found between the right and the left-sides (12).
Thoracic spine is unique as it contributes in the formation of ribcage through sterno-costo-vertebral articulations which provide increased stiffness and stability to the thoracic spine compared to the cervical and lumbar spines. The stability of the thoracic spine is compromised in decompression surgeries (31). Morphometric analysis of the thoracic vertebrae in the regional population can help in selecting optimal size instrumentation and lower the postoperative complications and help to provide better stability to the thoracic spine.
Limitation(s)
The present study included only dry, typical thoracic vertebrae for morphometric analysis. Detailed morphometric evaluation of individual thoracic vertebral levels will be undertaken in future research studies.
The present study provides baseline morphometric data of typical thoracic vertebrae in the Telangana population. The thoracic vertebral body transverse diameter, pedicle chord lengths, sagittal and transverse angles were greater than those reported in other studies. These findings are valuable for spinal decompression, pedicle screw fixation, and laminectomy, reducing the risk of neural injury. Additionally, this information may help improve surgical outcomes by customising spinal implants to the anatomical features of the Telangana population.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2025/81939.22063
Date of Submission: Jul 11, 2025
Date of Peer Review: Jul 31, 2025
Date of Acceptance: Sep 08, 2025
Date of Publishing: Dec 01, 2025
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? NA
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 24, 2025
• Manual Googling: Aug 26, 2025
• iThenticate Software: Sep 06, 2025 (18%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 6
- 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
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com