Submitted:
08 August 2024
Posted:
08 August 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Insufficient image quality (e.g., due to patient movement)
- Region of interest cut-off
- Presence of congenital lip and palate anomalies or other craniofacial syndromes
- History of trauma or surgery in the cervical spine
- Non-Italian nationality
- Field-of-view (FOV): 240 × 190 mm
- Normal resolution quality
- Tube voltage: 80 kVp
- Tube current: 5 mA
- Acquisition time: 15 seconds
- Type A: Failure of posterior midline fusion of the two hemiarches
- Type B: Unilateral defect
- Type C: Bilateral defects
- Type D: Absence of the posterior arch with a persistent posterior tubercle
- Type E: Absence of the entire posterior arch, including the tubercle
- Transverse plane coinciding with the Frankfurt plane (FH), passing through Orbital (Or) and Porion (Po)
- Sagittal plane coinciding with the mid-sagittal plane (MSP), perpendicular to FH and passing through Crista galli (Cg) and Basion (Ba)
- Coronal plane coinciding with the anteroposterior (PO) plane, perpendicular to FH and MSP, passing through the right and left porion.
3. Results
3.1. Prevalence and Classification of APAD
- Partial APAD was the most common form, occurring in 12 cases.
- Complete APAD was observed in 1 case.
3.2. Age Distribution
- 17-29 years: 2 cases (15.4%)
- 30-39 years: 4 cases (30.8%)
- 40-49 years: 3 cases (23.1%)
- 50-60 years: 4 cases (30.8%)
3.2.1. Case Report 1. Bilateral Complete Ponticulus Posticus and Complete Atlantal Posterior Arch Defect Type A in a 17-Year-Old Female: Clinical and Imaging Findings

3.2.2. Case Report 2. Unilateral Partial Ponticulus Posticus and Partial Atlantal Posterior Arch Defect Type A in a 54-Year-Old Female: Clinical Presentation and Imaging Characteristics

4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Currarino, G.; Rollins, N.; Diehl, J.T. Congenital defects of the posterior arch of the atlas: A report of seven cases including an affected mother and son. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1994, 15, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Choi, J.W.; Kim, S.J.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, H.W.; Ko, Y.H. A case of congenital cleft of the anterior arch and partial aplasia of the posterior arch of C1. Spine 2011, 36, E1407–E1410. [Google Scholar]
- Klimo, P.; Thompson, C.J.; Holubkov, R.; Schmidt, M.H. Congenital partial aplasia of the posterior arch of C1 leading to myelopathy: Case report and review of the literature. Spine 2003, 28, E455–E458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hyun, S.J.; Kim, K.J.; Yoon, D.H.; Kim, H.S.; Park, S.B.; Lee, C.K. The prevalence and clinical significance of C1 arch anomalies in patients with cervical spine symptoms. Spine J. 2018, 18, 1605–1611. [Google Scholar]
- Elmalky, M.; Mankin, T.; Marcus, J. Prevalence and implications of C1 arch anomalies: A retrospective study. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2013, 18, 576–581. [Google Scholar]
- Sabuncuoğlu, H.; Kahraman, S.; Acar, F.; Alper, S.; Özdinçler, A.R.; Arslan, M. A review of congenital posterior arch anomalies of the atlas. Neurochirurgia 2011, 54, 135–140. [Google Scholar]
- Torriani, M.; Lourenço, R.A. Congenital anomalies of the atlas: A review of the literature. Radiographics 2002, 22, 1217–1229. [Google Scholar]
- Izaki, Y.; Fukuda, S.; Kadoya, S.; Nakano, H.; Fujii, H.; Nakamura, M. A classification of the congenital defects of the atlas. Spine 2009, 34, 1065–1072. [Google Scholar]
- Junior, M.A.S.; de Oliveira, A.C.; Souza, J.F.; Silva, J.C.; Rocha, J.M.; de Almeida, F.J. Classification of congenital anomalies of the atlas. Neurospine 2021, 18, 457–465. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, B.H.; Kim, H.S.; Lee, H.J.; Kang, D.K.; Yoon, S.W.; Kim, J.S. Hypertrophy of the anterior arch and congenital nonunion of the posterior arch: A rare combination. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2014, 96, e105. [Google Scholar]
- Butt, N.; Sayeed, S.; Wong, H.K.; Kiyuna, M.A.; Ali, N.H. Associated anomalies of the atlas and their clinical significance. J. Orthop. Sci. 2021, 26, 164–171. [Google Scholar]
- Ogata, T.; Nakamura, H.; Yoshida, T.; Kawaguchi, Y.; Matsumoto, M.; Yamada, K. Cervical myelopathy associated with congenital anomalies of the atlas. J. Neurosurg. 2012, 117, 701–707. [Google Scholar]
- Chau, W.C.; Wong, W.; Sze, W.K.; Chang, W.M.; Lam, L.K.; Leung, K.C. The role of early diagnosis and management in congenital defects of the atlas. Spine J. 2009, 9, 671–676. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, K.T.; Khin, L.W.; Anuar, S.; Rehman, H.S.; Nguyen, T.D. The benign nature of certain congenital anomalies of the atlas. Neurosurgery 2007, 60, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, J.C. Clinical decision-making in congenital defects of the atlas: Insights from grand rounds. Spine 2013, 38, E233–E238. [Google Scholar]
- Festa, F.; Macrì, M.; Bozzetti, L.; Maione, L.; Rendina, F. Comprehensive review of clinical implications of atlas posterior arch defects. J. Bone Joint Surg. 2023, 105, 1250–1260. [Google Scholar]
- Macrì, M.; Festa, F.; Panella, M.; Zupi, A.; Conti, R.; Rendina, F. A critical review of atlas posterior arch deficiency and its impact on clinical practice. Neurospine 2024, 21, 205–213. [Google Scholar]
- Senoglu, M.; Abul, K.; Ulusoy, L.; Erdem, H. A review of posterior arch anomalies in the atlas: Classification and clinical implications. Spine 2007, 32, 1056–1061. [Google Scholar]
- Turk, A.; Karapinar, L.; Ozdemir, N.; Erdem, Y.; Sener, E.; Yalcin, K. The clinical significance of partial and complete posterior arch anomalies of the atlas. Neurochirurgia 2013, 56, 104–110. [Google Scholar]
- He, X.; Xu, H. Incidental detection of atlantal posterior arch defects: Implications for diagnosis and treatment. J. Neurosurg. 2012, 117, 643–649. [Google Scholar]
- Png, K.; Ho, W.; Lim, K.; Ng, K.; Wong, Y.C. Incidental findings of atlantal posterior arch defects in asymptomatic patients: A retrospective study. Spine J. 2015, 15, 882–889. [Google Scholar]
- Stulík, J.; Krbec, M. Associated craniovertebral junction anomalies with posterior arch defects of the atlas. J. Spinal Disord. 2003, 16, 58–65. [Google Scholar]
- Macrì, M.; Festa, F.; Zupi, A.; Rendina, F. Clinical significance of Ponticulus Posticus in cervical spine imaging. Spine J. 2023, 23, 112–118. [Google Scholar]
- Festa, F.; Macrì, M.; Zupi, A.; Bozzetti, L.; Rendina, F. Exploring the implications of Ponticulus Posticus on cervical spine disorders. Orthopaedic Surgery 2024, 12, 140–146. [Google Scholar]

| Classification | Number of Cases | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Partial APAD | 12 | 92.3 |
| Complete APAD | 1 | 7.7 |
| APAD with Ponticulus Posticus | 2 | 15.4 |
| Age range | Number of Cases | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 17–29 | 2 | 15.4 |
| 30–39 | 4 | 30.8 |
| 40–49 | 3 | 23.1 |
| 50–60 | 4 | 30.8 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).