Next Article in Journal
Museums and Territories: An Exploration of New Scopes for Mapping Technologies
Previous Article in Journal
A Top-Down, Multi-Method and Multi-Scale Approach to Studying the Byzantine–Umayyad Settlement of Umm ar-Rasas (Amman, Jordan)
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Bioarchaeological Insight into Etruscan Female Activity at Civita, Tarquinia
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Osseous Variants of the Cervical Spine with Potential Pathological Significance: Possible Evidence of Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency in a Skeletal Sample from the Post-Classical Cemetery of Corfinio (12th–15th Centuries CE, L’Aquila, Italy)

1
Faculty of Law and Business, Francisco de Vitoria University, 28223 Madrid, Spain
2
Department of Legal Medicine, Toxicology and Physical Anthropology, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain
3
Department of Sciences, ‘G. d’Annunzio’ University of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
4
Independent Researcher, 10062 Turin, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Heritage 2025, 8(5), 178; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8050178
Submission received: 25 March 2025 / Revised: 14 May 2025 / Accepted: 14 May 2025 / Published: 17 May 2025

Abstract

:
The vertebral arteries supply blood to the upper spinal cord, brainstem, cerebellum, and posterior part of the brain. These arteries are susceptible to deformation from external factors such as muscular, ligamentous, or bony structures, and any interruption of blood flow may result in vertebrobasilar insufficiency. Among the osseous variants of the cervical spine with potential pathological significance, variations in the number, shape, and size of the foramen transversarium, as well as the presence of bony bridges in the first cervical vertebra, may suggest a predisposition to vertebrobasilar insufficiency. A skeletal sample from the post-Classical cemetery of Corfinio (12th–15th centuries CE; L’Aquila, Italy) was examined. Regarding the morphology of the foramen transversarium, shape variations were identified in 32 of the 108 vertebrae analysed (a prevalence of 29.6%). Particularly noteworthy are three findings in the atlas: (i) a high prevalence of foramen transversarium variants (35.7% for hypoplastic and double foramina), (ii) a coefficient of roundness consistent with a brachymorphic shape, and (iii) a high prevalence of bony bridges —especially ponticulus posticus (52.9%) and retrotransverse foramen (64.7%). All of these findings may indicate a predisposition to vertebrobasilar insufficiency in the individuals studied. It is hypothesised that external mechanical factors, such as carrying heavy loads on the head, neck, and shoulders due to work activities, along with possible genetic influences related to kinship, may have contributed to the high prevalence of these osseous variants.

1. Introduction

Anatomical variation is defined as a deviation in the size, form, or structure of the body from that described in the classical medical literature and considered normal human anatomy [1]. These variations are important for several reasons. On the one hand, there are many types, often associated with specific populations [1,2], geographical regions, environmental adaptation, or exposure to chemical pollutants or radiation [1]. On the other hand, they offer insight into the variability of human anatomy and play a significant role in clinical practice [3,4,5]. Anatomical variations are commonly identified during routine clinical practice [6], and recognizing them is essential for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment. Understanding anatomical variations can not only improve clinical outcomes but also provide valuable information for reconstructing the physical health and living conditions of past populations through the study of human skeletal remains [7,8]. Although anatomical variations are not pathological by definition, some studies have suggested that certain variants may predispose individuals to pathological processes under specific conditions [9,10]; thus, palaeopathological studies of skeletal remains can offer important insights into potential risk factors for disease and the overall health of past populations [11].
The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of osseous variants of the cervical vertebrae with potential pathological significance. These include variations in the number, shape, and size of the foramen transversarium (FT), as well as the presence of bony bridges in the first cervical vertebra (atlas), such as the ponticulus posticus (PP), ponticulus lateralis (PL), and the retrotransverse foramen (RTF), in a skeletal sample from the post-Classical cemetery of Corfinio (12th–15th centuries CE; L’Aquila, Italy).

Cervical Spine Anatomy Overview

The cervical region is the segment of the spine with the greatest mobility. Unlike other spinal segments, the cervical vertebrae each contain transverse foramina that accommodate the major arteries of the neck—the vertebral arteries (VAs)—which supply approximately 20% of the brain’s blood, with the remaining 80% provided by the carotid system [12]. Each bilateral VA originates from the subclavian arteries (SCAs) and ascends along either side of the neck, merging within the cranium to form the single, midline basilar artery (BA). The VA is typically divided into four segments based on its anatomical course: VA1 (pre-foraminal), VA2 (foraminal), VA3 (extradural), and VA4 (intradural). The VA1 segment extends from the VA’s origin at the SCA to its entry into the FT of the C6 vertebra. The VA2 segment ascends through the FT from C6 to C2. The VA3 segment begins as the VA exits the FT of C2, loops around C1, and enters the dura mater. The VA4 segment—the intracranial portion—starts at the dura mater and continues to the point where the two VAs merge to form the BA within the cranium [13,14].
Within the vertebrobasilar vascular system, the VAs supply blood to the upper spinal cord, brainstem, cerebellum, and posterior part of the brain [15]. However, in their course from the SCA to the BA, the VAs are susceptible to deformation or damage from external factors such as muscular, ligamentous, or bony structures [16], and any significant interruption of blood supply may result in vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI), presenting a variety of symptoms depending on which region of the brain is predominantly affected. These symptoms include vertigo, dizziness or syncope, nausea and vomiting, ‘drop attacks’ (i.e., the patient experiences sudden generalised weakness), diplopia or loss of vision, paraesthesia, confusion, dysphagia or dysarthria, headache, facial pain, altered consciousness, ataxia, contralateral motor weakness, and incontinence, among others [15,17].
Among the variants in bone structure that can cause VBI, particular attention should be given to those affecting the FTs of the cervical vertebrae [18]. As noted above, the FTs serve as the passageways through which the VA ascends from the SCA to enter the cranium bilaterally. In some cases, the FTs may be absent, hypoplastic, or subject to deformations (e.g., abnormal osteophytic encroachments), or may exhibit variations in size, number, and shape [19,20,21], potentially compressing vital neural and vascular structures such as the VA.
Of particular importance is the first cervical vertebra (atlas, C1), which is characterised by distinctive structural and morphological features that contribute to its specialised function within the cervical spine. This vertebra plays a significant role in the biomechanics of the craniovertebral joint and, along with the second cervical vertebra (axis, C2), enables the nodding and rotational movements of the skull. Given the high mobility of the cervical spine, any abnormality in the path of the vertebral vessels through the FT of the atlas may impair blood flow to the brain. Compounding this critical issue is the high anatomical variability of C1, with the PP, PL, and RTF being other osseous variants that can affect the vertebral vessels. The PP/PL is a small bony bridge between the posterior portion of the superior articular process (PP) and the posterolateral portion (PL) of the superior margin of the posterior arch [22,23]. The RTF is a small bony bridge extending from the posterior root of the transverse process to the root of the posterior arch of the atlas, forming an accessory foramen on the posterior root of the transverse process [24]. In C1, the presence of bony spurs such as the PP and PL may exert external pressure on the VA as it passes from the FT of the vertebra to the foramen magnum of the skull. During extreme rotatory movements of the cervical spine, the VA may become compressed. A reduction in its cross-sectional area, combined with pathology in the contralateral VA, may compromise blood flow and result in VBI [25,26].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Original and Study Skeletal Samples

The original sample consisted of the skeletal remains of 34 individuals from the post-Classical cemetery of Corfinio (12th–15th centuries CE, L’Aquila, Italy). The osteological collection is housed at the Laboratory of Archaeology in the Department of Sciences at the ‘G. d’Annunzio’ University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy. Sex and age at death of the skeletal remains were previously estimated using standard osteological procedures. Sex was estimated using two complementary approaches: the descriptive method proposed by Ferembach et al. [27], which is based on cranial and pelvic features, and application of the Diagnose Sexuelle Probabiliste v2 program [28] to the os coxae. Age at death was estimated for all individuals using the Transition Analysis 3 program [29], designed to estimate age at death from partial skeletal remains. Based on the estimated age at death, individuals were divided into three age categories following conventional anthropological classification [30]: young adults (21–40 years), middle-aged adults (41–60 years), and senile adults (>61 years).

2.2. Archaeological Background of the Funerary Area

From pre-Roman times to the Middle Ages, Corfinium was one of the principal settlements in the southern part of the Valle Peligna, located along the route of the consular roads Tiburtina Valeria and Claudia Nova, in the inland region of Abruzzo (central-southern Italy) [31,32]. Between 1988 and 1994, and later between 2013 and 2018, a series of archaeological excavation campaigns identified a funerary area to the south of the oratory of Sant’Alessandro [33,34,35]. According to current research, based on stratigraphic data [36] and radiocarbon analysis (CEDAD–Lab, University of Salento, Italy), it can be concluded that the osteological sample analysed in the present study dates to between late 12th century CE and the mid-15th century CE. This period corresponds to an intensification in the use and frequentation of the cemetery area. Regarding the organisation of the burial space, archaeological investigations suggest that during the early part of this period, graves throughout the funerary area were laid out in a coherent manner, consisting of individual simple burials that facilitated identification of specific interments. Later, in the vicinity of the Sant’Alessandro oratory, intensive use of the funerary space and the consequent need to free up room led to significant stratification and superposition of older and more recent graves. This process compromised the preservation of the graves and the skeletal remains [37,38].

2.3. Analytical and Methodological Procedures

To ensure that the cervical vertebrae were fully developed [39], only individuals aged ≥21 years—based on age-at-death estimates—were included in the analysis. All vertebrae that could not be classified as C1–C7 were excluded from the study. All osseous variations of the cervical spine were recorded through macroscopic evaluation.
Before conducting the morphological analysis and collecting variables related to the FT, PP, PL, and RTF, all cervical vertebrae were assessed for potential limiting factors that might negatively influence subsequent analysis. These factors included traumatic injuries or fractures; occipitocervical fusion of the atlas, hemivertebrae, vertebral tumours, and infections; degenerative changes with osteophytic encroachments in the FT, PP, PL, or RTF; and taphonomic or diagenetic effects. Following the exclusion of affected FT, PP, PL, or RTF for each vertebra, morphological and metric data were collected bilaterally.

2.3.1. Morphological Data Collection

For the morphological analysis of the FT (C1–C7), osseous variations were classified into six categories (Figure 1) [21,40]: (i) normal FT, defined as a single FT in the transverse process of the vertebra; (ii) absence of FT, defined as the failed development of the FT; (iii) hypoplastic FT, defined as an FT with a diameter of <2 mm; (iv) complete double (accessory) FT, defined as an FT divided into two foramina by a bony spicule—when the additional foramen is separate from the primary FT, it is referred to as an accessory FT; (v) incomplete double (accessory) FT, defined as an FT not completely divided into two foramina by a bony spicule; and (vi) multiple FT, defined as an FT divided into three or more foramina by bony spicules. An accessory foramen was considered and recorded if the distinct foramen had a diameter of >1 mm. After classification into these six categories, FTs were further categorised as unilateral or bilateral.
The PP, PL, and RTF were recorded only for vertebra C1. These osseous variants were classified into three categories (Figure 2) [22,26]: (i) absence of PP, PL, or RTF, defined as the lack of a bony bridge; (ii) complete PP, PL, or RTF, defined as the presence of a bony bridge forming a complete bony ring; and (iii) incomplete PP, PL, or RTF, defined as the presence of a bony bridge with some portions of the ring missing or defective. After classification into these categories, each variant was further categorised as unilateral or bilateral.

2.3.2. Metric Data Collection

For the metric analysis of the FT, digital callipers with a precision of 0.01 mm (Masel Orthodontics Inc., Carlsbad, CA, USA) were used to measure the anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters on both sides. In vertebrae showing a complete accessory FT, only the primary FT was measured (the accessory FT was excluded from the analysis). According to Cagnie et al. [41], both anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters were measured on the inferior surface of each vertebra. Differences in size greater than 2 mm between the right and left FT within the same vertebra—either in the anteroposterior or mediolateral diameter—were classified as major asymmetry. To describe the characteristics of FT geometry, the coefficient of roundness was calculated according to Equation (1):
R = M e d i o l a t e r a l   d i a m e t e r A n t e r o p o s t e r i o r   d i a m e t e r
According to Taitz et al. [20], the coefficient of roundness was classified as brachymorph (R > 85), mesomorph (R from 75 to 85), or dolichomorph (R < 75).

2.3.3. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25 [42]. Descriptive analysis of the final study sample is reported as percentages for categorical variables and as means and standard deviations for continuous variables. Because vertebral sample sizes were expected to be small, possible associations between categorical variables were explored using Fisher’s exact test. The non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test was used to identify significant differences in FT diameters according to sex and laterality at each cervical level. Differences between the means of the primary FT in vertebrae with normal anatomy and the primary foramen in vertebrae with complete double FT were also analysed using the Mann–Whitney U-test. The significance level for all statistical tests was set at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

After evaluating the various limiting factors for the 34 individuals in the original sample (136 vertebrae), 27 adult individuals remained with the preservation of at least one cervical vertebra. The study was conducted on this final sample of 27 individuals (13 males, 11 females, 3 of unknown sex; age range: 21–69 years), with a total of 108 cervical vertebrae examined. Table 1 shows the demographic distribution of the original sample of cervical vertebrae according to sex and age group.

3.1. Osseus Variations of FT

3.1.1. Variations in Number

Table 2 shows the prevalence of osseous variations in the numbers of FTs. Of the 108 vertebrae examined, variations were observed in 32, representing a prevalence of 29.6%. Among these, hypoplastic FT was identified in two vertebrae (1.9%), both on the left side. Complete double FT was observed in nine vertebrae (8.3%) and incomplete double FT in 18 vertebrae (16.7%). A combination of complete and incomplete FT within the same vertebra was found in two cases (1.9%). Only one vertebra displayed multiple FT (0.9%), located on the left side, and no vertebrae exhibited complete absence of FT (i.e., failed development).
The results indicate that unilateral accessory FTs were more common than bilateral ones. Among cases of the complete double FTs, seven were unilateral and two were bilateral, showing a significant difference in prevalence (Fisher’s exact test = 2.778, p = 0.028). For incomplete double FTs, 16 were unilateral and two were bilateral, also showing a significant difference (Fisher’s exact test = 18.000, p = 0.007). Osseous variations of the FT—including hypoplastic, complete double, incomplete double, and multiple FTs—were present in all cervical vertebrae except C2, with 26 unilateral and four bilateral variants, reflecting a statistically significant difference in prevalence (Fisher’s exact test = 18.641, p = 0.000). Of the 26 unilateral variations, 11 were on the right and 15 on the left, although this difference in laterality was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test = 2.248, p = 0.619).
Osseous variations in the number of FTs were most frequent in the C6 vertebra (76.9%), followed by C5 (50.0%), C1 (35.7%), and C7 (35.3%). Variations were less common in C4 (12.5%), and C3 (6.3%), while C2 showed no osseous variation. For the C1, C3, C4, and C7 vertebrae, normal FT numbers were more prevalent than variations, with statistically significant differences for C3 and C4 (C1, Fisher’s exact test = 1.143, p = 0.424; C3, Fisher’s exact test = 12.250, p = 0.001; C4, Fisher’s exact test = 9.000, p = 0.004; C7, Fisher’s exact test = 1.471, p = 0.332). In C5, the number of normal FTs equalled the number of variations (Fisher’s exact test = 0.000, p = 1.000), while in C6, variations were more prevalent than normal FT, although the difference was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test = 3.769, p = 0.092).
Of the 32 osseous variations in the FT, 13 were observed in male vertebrae, 16 in female vertebrae, and three in vertebrae of unknown sex; however, the difference in prevalence between males and females was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test = 0.826, p = 0.388).

3.1.2. Variations in Size

Normal FT

Table 3 presents the measurements of the anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters of normal FT across all cervical vertebrae, categorised by sex and laterality. The anteroposterior diameter ranged from a mean of 3.25 to 7.55 mm, while the mediolateral diameter ranged from a mean of 3.95 to 7.05 mm. For pooled sexes and sides, the largest anteroposterior mean diameter was observed in C1 and the largest mediolateral mean diameter in C4. The smallest mean diameters for both anteroposterior and mediolateral measurements were found in C7.
Thus, across all cervical levels, males generally exhibited larger anteroposterior and mediolateral mean FT diameters than females on both sides, except in 10 instances where females showed larger values: mediolateral diameter on both sides in C1; anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters on the right side in C2, C3, and C5; anteroposterior diameter on the right side in C4; and anteroposterior diameter on the right side and mediolateral diameter on both sides in C7. With regard to laterality, the anteroposterior and mediolateral mean diameters were typically larger on the left side for all cervical levels, except in 11 cases where the right side showed larger values: anteroposterior diameter for males and mediolateral diameter for females in C1; both diameters for females in C2, C3, C5, and C7; and anteroposterior diameter for females in C4. However, comparisons using the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test revealed no statistically significant differences for sex or laterality at any cervical level (p > 0.05).
A size difference of >2 mm between the right and left FT in the same vertebra—whether in anteroposterior or mediolateral diameter—was observed in five vertebrae from four of the 27 individuals (14.8%). In three cases, the affected vertebra was C2 (one case involving the anteroposterior diameter and two involving the mediolateral diameter); in one case, it was C6 (mediolateral diameter), and in one case C7 (mediolateral diameter). The asymmetry measured 2.23 mm for the anteroposterior diameter and ranged from 2.10 to 3.51 mm for the mediolateral diameter. In four vertebrae (two C2, one C6, and one C7 from the same individual), the right FT was larger than the left, while in one C2 vertebra, the left FT was larger than the right.
Finally, moving cranio-caudally along the cervical spine (Figure 3), a differential trend in the anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters was observed. Overall, with both sexes and sides pooled, anteroposterior diameters decreased from C1 to C3, increased slightly from C3 to C6, and then decreased markedly at C7. By contrast, mediolateral diameters increased slightly from C1 to C4, decreased slightly from C4 to C6, and further decreased at C7.

3.1.3. Variations in Shape

Normal FT

Table 3 and Figure 3 present the descriptive statistics and the distribution of the mean coefficient of roundness, respectively, according to sex and laterality for the normal FT of the vertebrae. All FTs, for both sexes and sides, were classified as brachymorph, with the exception of C1 (on the right side in males). Across cervical levels, no significant differences were observed with respect to sex or laterality (p > 0.05).
Finally, moving cranio-caudally along the cervical spine, a trend in the coefficient of roundness was also noted (Figure 3). When pooling both sexes and sides, the coefficient of roundness increased markedly from C1 to C3, decreased slightly from C3 to C6, and then increased significantly at C7, with all vertebrae remaining within the brachymorph classification.

3.2. Osseous Variations of Vertebra C1

Of the 17 specimens examined, 15 presented at least one anomaly—PP, PL, or RTF— representing a prevalence of 88.2%.

3.2.1. Ponticulus Posticus (PP)

Of the 17 specimens examined, nine (52.9%) exhibited PP. Among these, four (23.5%) were incomplete, three (17.6%) were complete, and two (11.8%) displayed both complete and incomplete PP within the same vertebra (Table 4). Unilateral PP (observed in five vertebrae) was more common than bilateral PP (two vertebrae), though the difference was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test = 5.053, p = 0.095). Of the nine PP observed, six were found in male vertebrae and three in female vertebrae; however, this difference in prevalence between sexes was also not considered statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test = 2.019, p = 0.456).

3.2.2. Ponticulus Lateralis (PL)

As shown in Table 4, only one of the 17 specimens examined (5.9%) exhibited PL, presenting a combination of complete and incomplete PL within the same C1 vertebra. This specimen belonged to a female individual, and the difference in the prevalence of this osseous variation between sexes was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test = 2.577, p = 0.471).

3.2.3. Retrotransverse Foramen (RTF)

Of the 17 specimens examined, 11 (64.7%) presented RTF. Among these, nine (52.9%) were incomplete and one (5.9%) was complete. A combination of complete and incomplete RTF within the same vertebra was observed in one C1 specimen (5.9%) (Table 4). The results indicated that unilateral RTF (eight vertebrae) was more common than bilateral RTF (three vertebrae), with a statistically significant difference (Fisher’s exact test = 9.310, p = 0.012). Of the 10 RTF cases included in the sex-based analysis (one C1 was excluded due to unknown sex), five were observed in male vertebrae and five in female vertebrae. This difference was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test = 1.053, p = 0.762).
Overall, 5 of the 17 analysed C1 vertebrae (29.4%) exhibited two or more simultaneous osseous variants (PP, PL, and/or RTF). Specifically, one individual displayed the presence of all three variants (PP + PL + RTF), while four individuals presented a combination of PP and RTF. No cases were found with only PL + RTF or PP + PL without the third variant.

4. Discussion

4.1. Osseous Variations of FT

4.1.1. Variations in Number

In the study sample from Corfinio, the most notable findings include hypoplastic FT in two vertebrae (C1 and C7; 1.9%), multiple FT in one vertebra (C5; 0.9%), and duplication of the FT in 29 vertebrae (26.8%), observed across all cervical levels except C2. No vertebrae showed failed development of the FT (i.e., complete absence).
According to the current literature, hypoplastic FT (i.e., <2 mm in diameter) is particularly rare, with reported prevalence ranging from 0.1% to 4.5% in studies based on dry cervical vertebrae (see Supplementary Table S1; [18,20,21,25,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81]). The results from the Corfinio sample are consistent with these. Abd El Gawad et al. [82] note that the FT diameter serves as a reliable indicator of VA size and that a small FT may suggest VA hypoplasia. The diameter of the FT holds clinical relevance in the cervical spine because individuals with VA hypoplasia may face a heightened risk of posterior circulation stroke [83]. However, in the Corfinio sample, it is unclear whether the VA was hypoplastic or followed an alternative pathway, as suggested in studies by Ikegami et al. [84] and Shoja et al. [85]. Multiple FT is even rarer [20,21,59,65,72,79,80], with the literature reporting a prevalence of 0.1% to 1.0%. The result for the Corfinio sample aligns with previous findings, falling at the upper limit of this range. According to Roh et al. [86], the presence of additional foramina in the transverse processes may suggest a multiplication of vascular structures passing through them, although the clinical significance of this remains uncertain.
The double (accessory) FT is the most widely reported osseous variant of the FT in previous studies. The prevalence observed in the Corfinio sample (26.8%) is consistent with earlier research on the cervical spine, where reported rates range from 1.4% [59] to 47.6% [72] (see Supplementary Table S1). However, variations in reported prevalence may stem from differences in methodology used to examine and analyse this osseous variant, as well as from the diverse origins of the studied samples. For instance, several studies were based on specific cervical segments [66], only analysing the C3–C6 segment [63], the C3–C7 segment, or the entire cervical spine [69,70,72], rather than analysing each cervical vertebra individually. Some also reported data based on the total number of FT rather than the number of vertebrae examined per cervical level [79,80]. The data from the Corfinio sample align with previous studies that identified a higher prevalence of double FT in the C6 vertebra, followed by C5, C4, and C7, with lower prevalence in C3 and C2 [18,20,49,56,62,64,74,75,77,81]. However, unlike these prior findings, the Corfinio sample showed a notably high prevalence of double FT in C1 (28.6%), contrary to earlier reports that documented lower prevalences for this particular vertebra [18,20,49,56,62,64,74,75,77,81].
Because of the limited availability reported data, few studies have examined the distribution of FT number variations by sex and laterality. Regarding sex distribution, several studies—including those by Viciano et al. [18], Zibis et al. [21], and Quiles-Guiñau et al. [87]—found no significant differences between males and females, and the prevalence data from the Corfinio sample are consistent with these findings. By contrast, when examining the distribution by laterality, unilateral FT variants were more common than bilateral variants in the Corfinio sample. Furthermore, among the unilateral variants, the prevalence was higher on the left side than the right, although this difference was not statistically significant. While most studies have focused on unilateralism versus bilateral occurrence, relatively few have addressed side-specific laterality [21,25,45,51,53,54,56,57,59,60,65,66,67,72,75,77,81]. The findings from Corfinio align with most of these earlier studies, though they differ from several others—such as those by Yadav et al. [45], Patra et al. [63], Aydınlıoğlu et al. [76], Sharma et al. [68], and Mishra et al. [58]—in which unilateral variants were less prevalent than bilateral ones. However, these latter studies did not specify whether the observed differences were statistically significant. Notably, statistical analyses by Viciano et al. [18] and Quiles-Guiñau et al. [81,87] did indicate a predominance of unilateral over bilateral variants, although in contrast to the Corfinio sample, those studies found a higher prevalence on the right side, with only the findings of Viciano et al. [18] reaching a statistical significance.

4.1.2. Variations in Size

Normal FT

In the Corfinio study sample, the size of the normal FT showed that across all cervical levels, both anteroposterior and mediolateral mean diameters were larger in males than in females and were also larger on the left side than on the right, although these differences were not statistically significant. These findings align with those of previous studies examining differences by sex [18,81,88,89] and laterality [18,89,90,91]. Various studies suggest that FT size correlates with blood flow, the side of the dominant VA, and the point at which the VA enters the vertebra [20,92,93]. The two VAs are typically unequal in size, with the left VA generally being larger, under higher pressure, and responsible for carrying more blood than the right, thus making the left VA dominant [94]. The size difference between VAs according to laterality is thought to be reflected in FT size, which tends to be larger on the dominant side [95]. One hypothesis proposed to explain such asymmetry is based on the brain’s vascular demands for glucose and oxygen, suggesting, for instance, that right-handed individuals may have a dominant left VA to support increased vascular requirements of the left hemisphere. To test this, several researchers [96,97] investigated whether right-handed individuals tend to have a dominant left VA and left-handed individuals a dominant right VA. Their findings revealed no correlation between VA diameter and handedness, leading to the conclusion that this hypothesis cannot be confirmed.
On the other hand, size differences of >2 mm between the left and right FT (i.e., major asymmetry) may reflect variations in the size or pathway of the VA [98]. Variations in the normal anatomy of the extracranial VA are relatively common, ranging from general asymmetry between the two VAs to significant hypoplasia of one VA [99]. In terms of VA pathway, the C6 vertebra is the most frequent entry point, with the VA typically bypassing the FT of C7 (in >90% of cases [100,101,102]); in rare instances, however, the VA follows an extra-transverse course through the neck, entering at almost any cervical level [100,103]. In the Corfinio study sample, major asymmetries were observed in two of the 108 vertebrae (1.9%): one at C1 and one at C7. The asymmetry at C7 may suggest a variation in VA entry level, most likely entering directly at C6. More concerning is the hypoplastic FT observed in the C1 vertebra. The presence of a hypoplastic VA before entering through the foramen magnum is associated with an elevated risk of ischaemic stroke and neurological complications due to reduced blood flow to structures in the posterior cranial fossa [83,104].
Along the cervical spine, the cross-sectional area of the FT generally decreased from C1 to C3, increased slightly from C3 to C6, and then decreased markedly at C7. Similar trends have been reported by other researchers (e.g., [18,41,79]). According to Cavdar et al. [105], the size of the VA—and thus the FT— decreases from C6 to C3 and then increases toward C1, where cervical spine extension and rotation, associated with head movement, may lead to mechanical compression of the blood vessels in the neck, potentially resulting in VBI [106,107]. Cavdar et al. [105] propose that the physiological variability in VA size from C6 to C3 may function as a regulatory mechanism for arterial blood pressure, allowing the VA to dilate when necessary to control the pressure reaching the brain. Additionally, vasoconstriction of the VA at the lower cervical levels (below C3) may be a response to the challenge of blood flow against gravity. In this context, vasoconstriction could serve to increase pressure, ensuring that sufficient blood reaches higher cervical and cranial levels. Thus, the variability in VA size may play a key role in modulating cerebral blood pressure structurally adapting—via dilation or narrowing—to the circulatory demands of the brain.

Complete Double FT

Across all cervical levels with complete double FT, the Corfinio study sample showed that the accessory FT was consistently smaller than the primary FT, in agreement with previous studies [18,81,87]. Given that FT size may influence the calibre and blood flow of the VAs [105], it is important to consider whether vertebrae with complete double FT also exhibit a reduction in the size of the primary FT when compared with vertebrae of normal anatomy. This is particularly relevant because the presence of an accessory FT could potentially affect the dimensions of the primary FT. In the Corfinio sample, complete double FT was associated with a smaller primary FT compared to normal vertebrae, with statistically significant differences observed only in the anteroposterior diameter of C5. These findings are consistent with previous research [18,81,87], which also suggests that this correlation may be relevant to compressive pathology of the VA, particularly at the C4 to C6 levels.
According to the existing literature, the FT may be divided by a bony or fibrous bridge, suggesting that the function of a double FT could relate to the compartmentalisation of its contents. However, there is no consensus on whether the accessory FT contains veins, branches of the VAs, or a branch of the inferior cervical ganglion [59,67,108]. Some researchers propose that a double FT may be associated with duplication or fenestration of the VA [109,110]. In cases of duplication, this condition could offer a protective effect against ischaemic attacks, as the duplicated vessel may help maintain adequate blood flow to the BA. By contrast, fenestration may increase the risk of aneurysm and thrombus formation, potentially leading to severe ischaemic events [111,112], although some authors argue that VA fenestration has no significant pathological consequences [113].

4.1.3. Variations in Shape

Normal FT

In the Corfinio study sample, the FTs of all vertebrae were classified as brachymorph (i.e., with predominance of mediolateral over anteroposterior diameter), except for the FT of C1 on the right side in male individuals. These findings are consistent with those reported by Kwiatkowska et al. [79] but contrast with the results reported by Viciano et al. [18], Taitz et al. [20], and Kimura et al. [47], who observed that FTs from C1 to C4 were mesomorph, C5 and C6 brachymorph, and C7 dolichomorph.
The category of the coefficient of roundness of the FT is related to the passage of the VA at each level of the cervical spine. The anatomy of the VA in the craniovertebral region (i.e., at the C1–C2 level) exhibits greater variability than the lower cervical spine (i.e., C3–C6), where the VA follows a more straightforward course [114]. Consequently, a higher frequency of a specific roundness category may be associated with mechanical tension and stress imposed on a vertebra due to head movements. Movements such as flexion, extension, and rotation place pressure on the blood vessels and can compress the contralateral VA relative to the direction of rotation, potentially affecting blood flow at the C1–C2 level [114]. According to Taitz et al. [20], rotational head movements can alter the length of the VA on the contralateral side by up to 10%. Therefore, excessive or repeated head movements may influence the morphology of the FT at the atlantoaxial junction by affecting the dynamics of the blood vessel passage.

4.2. Osseous Variations of Vertebra C1

4.2.1. Ponticulus Posticus (PP) and Ponticulus Lateralis (PL)

In the Corfinio study sample, the overall prevalence of PP was 52.9%, higher than that reported in most studies (see Supplementary Table S2; [16,22,24,26,40,44,78,80,82,88,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152]), which typically range from 5% to 30% in the general population. However, several studies have reported prevalences above 50% [26,82,118,134], consistent with the present findings. As for PL, the Corfinio sample showed an overall prevalence of 5.9%, aligning with the majority of earlier studies (see Supplementary Table S2), which report rates between 1.2% and 10.9%; an exception is Karau et al. [134], who observed a considerably higher prevalence of 21.1%. The small sample size from Corfinio, as well as the geographically and ethnically diverse samples used in previous studies, may help explain these wide variations in reported prevalence. The aetiology of bony bridges (PP and PL) in C1 remains debated. The earlier literature considered these variants congenital [153,154], while more recent studies have proposed a genetic basis [155,156], pointing to a possible heritable component, although no specific genes have been identified. It is therefore likely that both genetic predisposition and environmental factors contribute to their development.
Several authors have argued that bony bridges of the C1 vertebra, including the PP and PL, may have a genetic or hereditary basis when analysing human skeletal remains in both archaeological [157,158,159] and forensic [160] contexts. In particular, some studies have proposed that these osseous variants may reflect inherited skeletal traits that tend to cluster within families or small, genetically homogeneous populations [110,111]. Such patterns could be more pronounced in isolated rural communities where consanguinity and endogamy were more common, especially during the medieval period. The high prevalence of PP in the Corfinio study sample may therefore suggest an underlying influence of familial or population-level genetic factors. This hypothesis is supported by the findings of Sanchis-Gimeno et al. [142], who reported a significantly higher prevalence of PP in a 17th century rural population than in a modern urban sample, attributing the difference partly to reduced genetic diversity in earlier rural settings. Although direct genetic data are not yet available for the Corfinio sample, the prolonged use of the cemetery by a stable, localised population—evidenced by overlapping burials and long-term funerary activity—may support the likelihood of familial ties and limited gene flow, consistent with a genetic component in the high frequency of these osseous variants.
However, other authors suggest that the bony bridges of the C1 vertebra may result from ossification associated with ageing [161] or from external mechanical factors [24,26,134], such as the repeated carrying of heavy loads on the head, neck, and shoulders, which may significantly contribute to their development. It has been proposed that PP and PL serve a protective role for the VA at the craniocervical junction—an area particularly vulnerable to damage or compression during head and neck movements [162]. Supporting this perspective, Paraskevas et al. [24] reported a higher prevalence of bony bridges in C1 among manual labourers (PP: 37.5%; PL: 50%) than among non-labourers (PP: 4.2%; PL: 18.8%), concluding that mechanical stress from physical labour contributes to their formation. The results from the Corfinio study sample show a minimal effect of sex on the prevalence of PP and PL; although bony bridges in C1 were generally more common in males than females, the differences were not statistically significant. These findings support those of Paraskevas et al. [24], who also observed a higher prevalence in males. However, they contrast with the results of Taitz and Nathan [26] and Karau et al. [134], who associated a higher prevalence in females with cultural practices involving the carrying of heavy loads on the head, neck, and shoulders. It is important to consider that different populations may assign distinct sex-based roles, behaviours, or work activities, which could influence the occurrence of bony bridges and conditions such as VBI syndrome. Given that males in the Corfinio study sample may have been more frequently engaged in such physically demanding tasks, this could offer a plausible explanation for the observed differences.

4.2.2. Retrotransverse Foramen

In the Corfinio study sample, the overall prevalence of RTF was 64.7%, which is notably higher than in most previous studies (see Supplementary Table S2), where reported rates range from 5.6% to 26.2% in the general population. However, these findings are comparable to those of Veleanu et al. [136], who reported a prevalence of 67.6%. As with other variants, the small sample size from Corfinio, along with the diverse geographical and ethnic backgrounds of populations studied in previous research, may partly account for the broad variation in the reported prevalence of vertebrae affected by RTF.
According to Veleanu et al. [136], Bodon et al. [163], and Xing et al. [164], the RTF contains an anastomotic vein connecting the atlantooccipital and atlantoaxial venous sinuses within the posterior arch of C1. It has been proposed that the presence of the RTF may be linked to evolutionary changes in regional venous circulation associated with the acquisition of upright posture and bipedal locomotion in humans [165,166]. These modifications are thought to be adaptations to hydrostatic pressure, as gravity causes blood from the cranium in upright humans to drain primarily through the vertebral venous plexus [121,122]. However, other studies have identified neural or arterial components within RTFs as well [123,167]. Paraskevas et al. [24] reported a high incidence of co-occurrence of PP and RTF, which could contribute to vertebral vein compression and potentially result in VBI. Notably, if the RTFs were solely a response to bipedalism and vascular adaptation, one might expect a higher frequency of bilateral rather than unilateral RTFs. In the Corfinio study sample, however, unilateral RTFs were significantly more frequent than bilateral ones, suggesting that other factors—possibly developmental or mechanical—may influence this asymmetrical prevalence.

5. Concluding Remarks and Suggestions for Further Research

This study presents a detailed account of the prevalence of osseous variants in the cervical spine with potential pathological significance—specifically variations in the number, size, and shape of the FT, as well as the presence of bony bridges in the C1 vertebra—based on an osteological analysis of remains from the post-Classical cemetery of Corfinio (12th–15th centuries CE, L’Aquila, Italy). While the findings largely align with existing literature, notable divergences were observed, particularly in relation to the C1 vertebra. These observations can be summarised as follows:
  • The prevalence of osseous variations of the FT (hypoplastic + double FT) in C1 is high (35.7%) compared with previous studies.
  • The coefficient of roundness for C1, when pooling both sexes and sides, is classified as brachymorph (i.e., mediolateral diameter exceeding anteroposterior), contrasting with previous studies in which C1 FT is typically classified as mesomorph.
  • The prevalence of bony bridges in C1, particularly PP (52.9%) and RTF (64.7%), is markedly higher than in most published reports.
  • The distribution of FT variations in number, size, and shape, as well as the prevalence of bony bridges in C1, appears relatively homogeneous between sexes, with no statistically significant sex-based differences.
The C1 vertebra, the most superior vertebra of the spine, plays a vital role in supporting the cranium, spinal cord, and VAs, while also serving as an attachment point for several neck muscles. As noted above, deformations or disruptions to blood flow caused by osseous variations of C1 may lead to VBI, which can manifest in a wide range of symptoms depending on the affected region, such as vertigo, dizziness or syncope, nausea and vomiting, ‘drop attacks’, headache, facial pain, altered consciousness, and contralateral motor weakness. The findings of this study support the conclusions of other authors who argue that osseous variations of the FT and the presence of bony bridges in C1 may act as predisposing factors for VBI.
At the current stage of research, it has not been possible to determine the specific work activities performed during life by the individuals in the osteological sample from the post-Classical cemetery of Corfinio used in this study. However, we suggest that the practice of carrying heavy loads on the head, neck, and shoulders may partly account for the osseous variations observed in C1. Furthermore, the relatively homogeneous distribution of these features between sexes indicates no significant differences in gender-related work roles within this skeletal sample. At the same time, we also consider it likely that genetic factors may have contributed to the development of these osseous variations.
It is important to note that the overall prevalence rates of PP, PL, and RTF reported in this study include both complete and incomplete forms, whereas many comparative studies in the literature focus primarily on complete variants. This methodological difference may partly account for the higher prevalence observed in the Corfinio study sample compared with certain other studies. Future research should aim for consistent categorisation of these osseous variants to enable more accurate cross-study comparisons. Nevertheless, our findings align with general trends in the literature and further support both the genetic and mechanical hypotheses regarding the formation of bony bridges in C1.
The principal limitation of this study is the small sample size of examined vertebrae, particularly C1. The limited availability of skeletal material from the archaeological context inherently restricts the generalisability of the findings and reduces the statistical power to detect significant differences. Nevertheless, the descriptive and comparative data offer valuable insights into cervical spine osseous variations—especially in C1—and highlight patterns that merit further investigation in larger samples. While most results are consistent with the existing literature, notable exceptions were observed in the prevalence and morphological patterns of FT and bony bridges in C1, which deserve closer examination. Given the exceptionally high prevalence of osseous variants in C1, further research is needed to clarify the role of external mechanical and/or genetic factors in the variations observed in the Corfinio sample. To explore the influence of external mechanical stress, a detailed analysis of skeletal entheseal changes, particularly in the shoulder girdle and upper limbs, is essential. Additionally, to evaluate the potential genetic contribution and to confirm or exclude familial relationships among individuals, DNA analysis or, alternatively, the examination of non-metric cranial, postcranial, and/or dental traits is recommended.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/heritage8050178/s1. Table S1: Brief review of the literature on the prevalence of the anatomical variants of the foramen transversarium for contemporary and ancient populations (data from dry cervical vertebrae). Table S2: Brief review of the literature on the prevalence of the ponticulus posticus, ponticulus lateralis, and retrotransverse foramen (complete or incomplete) in vertebra C1 for contemporary and ancient populations (data from dry cervical vertebrae).

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.A., C.T., and J.V.; methodology, A.A., C.T., and J.V.; formal analysis, A.A., C.T., and J.V.; investigation, A.A., C.T., M.C.S., V.L.S., S.A., and J.V.; resources, M.C.S., V.L.S., and S.A.; data curation, A.A., C.T., and J.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A., C.T., and J.V.; writing—review and editing, A.A., C.T., M.C.S., V.L.S., S.A., and J.V.; visualisation, J.V.; supervision, J.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No external funding was received for this research.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
VAVertebral artery
SCASubclavian artery
BABasilar artery
VBIVertebrobasilar insufficiency
FTForamen transversarium
PPPonticulus posticus
PLPonticulus lateralis
RTFRetrotransverse foramen
RCoefficient of roundness

References

  1. Alraddadi, A. Literature Review of Anatomical Variations: Clinical Significance, Identification Approach, and Teaching Strategies. Cureus 2021, 13, e14451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Suhani, S.; Mamatha, H.; Rao, I.; Shree, A.; Kumar, N. Supernumerary Heads of Biceps Brachii Muscle in South Indian Cadavers. Anat. J. Afr. 2013, 2, 108–113. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kachlík, D.; Varga, I.; Báča, V.; Musil, V. Variant Anatomy and Its Terminology. Medicina 2020, 56, 713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sañudo, J.R.; Vázquez, R.; Puerta, J. Meaning and Clinical Interest of the Anatomical Variations in the 21st Century. Eur. J. Anat. 2003, 7, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  5. Żytkowski, A.; Tubbs, R.S.; Iwanaga, J.; Clarke, E.; Polguj, M.; Wysiadecki, G. Anatomical Normality and Variability: Historical Perspective and Methodological Considerations. Transl. Res. Anat. 2021, 23, 100105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Raikos, A.; Smith, J.D. Anatomical Variations: How Do Surgical and Radiology Training Programs Teach and Assess Them in Their Training Curricula? Clin. Anat. 2015, 28, 717–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Viciano, J.; Urbani, V.; D’Anastasio, R. Congenital Anatomical Variant of the Clavicle. Anat. Rec. 2017, 300, 1401–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Viciano, J.; Tanga, C.; Somma, M.C. Cervical Rib in a Young Individual from the Late Medieval Cemetery of Corfinio (12th–13th Century CE, Italy): A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Anthropol. Anz. 2021, 78, 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Barnes, E. Atlas of Developmental Field Anomalies of the Human Skeleton: A Paleopathology Perspective; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 9781118013885. [Google Scholar]
  10. Nikolova, S.Y.; Toneva, D.H.; Yordanov, Y.A.; Lazarov, N.E. Multiple Wormian Bones and Their Relation with Definite Pathological Conditions in a Case of an Adult Cranium. Anthropol. Anz. 2014, 71, 169–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Buzic, I.; Giuffra, V. The Paleopathological Evidence on the Origins of Human Tuberculosis: A Review. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 2020, 61, e3–e8. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dutton, M. Vertebral Artery. In Dutton’s Orthopaedic: Examination, Evaluation, and Intervention; Dutton, M., Ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1246–1255. [Google Scholar]
  13. Benzel, E.C. The Cervical Spine, 5th ed.; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, BA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. George, B. Extracranial Vertebral Artery Anatomy and Surgery. In Advances and technical standards in Neurosurgery; Picard, J.D., Dolenc, V.V., Reulen, H.J., de Tribolet, N., Vapalahti, M., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Vienna, Austria, 2002; Volume 27, pp. 179–216. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mohr, J.P.; Caplan, L.R. Vertebrobasilar Disease. In Stroke; Mohr, J.P., Wolf, P.A., Grotta, J.C., Moskowitz, M.A., Mayberg, M.R., von Kummer, R., Eds.; W.B. Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2011; pp. 446–484. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mitchell, J. The Incidence of the Lateral Bridge of the Atlas Vertebra. J. Anat. 1998, 193, 283–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Pirau, L.; Lui, F. Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  18. Viciano, J.; Remigio, M.; D’Anastasio, R.; Capasso, L. Anatomical Variations of the Foramen Transversarium of Cervical Vertebrae from the Ancient Population of Herculaneum (79 CE; Naples, Italy). Homo 2021, 72, 61–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kültür, T.; Bayar Muluk, N.; Iyem, C.; Inal, M.; Burulday, V.; Alpua, M.; Çelebi, U.O. Anatomic Considerations: The Relationship between the Vertebral Artery and Transverse Foramina at Cervical Vertebrae 1 to 6 in Patients with Vertigo. ENT Updates 2018, 8, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Taitz, C.; Nathan, H.; Arensburg, B. Anatomical Observations of the Foramina Transversaria. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 1978, 41, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zibis, A.H.; Mitrousias, V.; Baxevanidou, K.; Hantes, M.; Karachalios, T.; Arvanitis, D. Anatomical Variations of the Foramen Transversarium in Cervical Vertebrae: Findings, Review of the Literature, and Clinical Significance during Cervical Spine Surgery. Eur. Spine J. 2016, 25, 4132–4139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Karapetian, M.K. Discrete Morphological Variants of Human Cervical Vertebrae: Exploring Pattern of Distribution and Biological Significance. Homo 2017, 68, 176–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Song, M.S.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, J.T.; Kim, J.H.; Hong, J.T. Ponticulus Posticus: Morphometric Analysis and Its Anatomical Implications for Occipito-Cervical Fusion. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2017, 157, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Paraskevas, G.; Papaziogas, B.; Tsonidis, C.; Kapetanos, G. Gross Morphology of the Bridges over the Vertebral Artery Groove on the Atlas. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2005, 27, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Akhtar, M.J.; Madhukar, P.K.; Rahman, S.; Kashyap, N. A Morphometric Study of Foramen Transversarium of Dried Cervical Vertebrae. Int. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2015, 3, 912–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Taitz, C.; Nathan, H. Some Observations on the Posterior and Lateral Bridge of the Atlas. Acta Anat. (Basel) 1986, 127, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ferembach, D.; Schwindezky, I.; Stoukal, M. Recommendations for Age and Sex Diagnoses of Skeletons. J. Hum. Evol. 1980, 9, 517–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brůžek, J.; Santos, F.; Dutailly, B.; Murail, P.; Cunha, E. Validation and Reliability of the Sex Estimation of the Human Os Coxae Using Freely Available DSP2 Software for Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2017, 164, 440–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Getz, S.M. The Use of Transition Analysis in Skeletal Age Estimation. WIREs Forensic Sci. 2020, 2, e1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vallois, H.V. Vital Statistics in Prehistoric Populations as Determined from Archaeological Data. In The Application of Quantitative Methods in Archaeology; Heizer, R.F., Cook, S.F., Eds.; Quadrangle Books: Chicago, IL, USA, 1960; pp. 186–222. [Google Scholar]
  31. De Nino, A. Corfinio: Notizie Degli Scavi Di Antichità; Reale Accademia dei Lincei: Roma, Italy, 1879. [Google Scholar]
  32. Van Wonterghem, F. Superaequum, Corfinium, Sulmo; L.S. Olschki: Firenze, Italy, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  33. Giuntella, A.M. Ricerche Sul Complesso Episcopale Valvense: Un Singolare Sarcofago Vescovile? In Quaeritur Inventus Colitur: Miscellanea in Onore Di Padre U.M. Fasola; Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana: Vatican City, Vatican, 1989; pp. 363–379. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cavallari, C. Le Aree Funerarie Tardoantiche e Medievali Di Corfinio (AQ). In Proceedings of the Atti del VII Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia Medievale; Arthur, P., Leo Imperiale, M., Eds.; All’Insegna del Giglio: Firenze, Italy, 2015; pp. 55–60. [Google Scholar]
  35. Somma, M.C. Da Corfinio a Pentima: Trasformazioni Urbane Di Un Centro a Continuità Di Vita. In Ancient Modern Towns. I Centri Urbani a Continuità di vita: Archeologia e Valorizzazione; Somma, M.C., Ed.; Edizioni Quasar: Roma, Italy, 2021; pp. 69–84. [Google Scholar]
  36. Casolino, C. Ri-Pensare Le Trasformazioni in Età Postclassica: Valutazione e Analisi Del Dato Archeologico. PhD Dissertation, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  37. Barbiera, I. Sepolture e Necropoli Medievali Nei Quarant’anni Di Vita Di Archeologia Medievale. Archeol. Mediev. Cult. Mater. Insediamenti Territ. 2014, Special Issue. 111–121. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tanga, C. Ll Cimitero Bassomedievale Presso Il Complesso Monumentale Valvense Di S. Pelino a Corfinio (AQ): Riflessioni Sui Primi Dati. In Temporis signa: Archeologia della tarda antichità e del medioevo; Stasolla, F.R., Annoscia, G., De Lellis, L., Guerrini, P., Marchetti, M.I., Somma, M.C., Eds.; Fondazione CISAM: Spoleto, Italy, 2020; Volume XIII, pp. 153–164. [Google Scholar]
  39. Miller, C.A.; Hwang, S.J.; Cotter, M.M.; Vorperian, H.K. Cervical Vertebral Body Growth and Emergence of Sexual Dimorphism: A Developmental Study Using Computed Tomography. J. Anat. 2019, 234, 764–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Travan, L.; Saccheri, P.; Gregoraci, G.; Mardegan, C.; Crivellato, E. Normal Anatomy and Anatomic Variants of Vascular Foramens in the Cervical Vertebrae: A Paleo-Osteological Study and Review of the Literature. Anat. Sci. Int. 2015, 90, 308–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cagnie, B.; Barbaix, E.; Vinck, E.; D’Herde, K.; Cambier, D. Extrinsic Risk Factors for Compromised Blood Flow in the Vertebral Artery: Anatomical Observations of the Transverse Foramina from C3 to C7. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2005, 27, 312–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows 2017; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kaya, S.; Yilmaz, N.D.; Pusat, S.; Kural, C.; Kirik, A.; Izci, Y. Double Foramen Transversarium Variation in Ancient Byzantine Cervical Vertebrae: Preliminary Report of an Anthropological Study. Turk. Neurosurg. 2011, 21, 534–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nagar, Y.; Taitz, C.; Reich, R. What Can We Make of These Fragments? Excavation at “Mamilla” Cave, Byzantine Period, Jerusalem. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 1999, 9, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yadav, Y.; Goswami, P.; Bharihoke, V. An Osteological Study of Foramen Transversarium: Variations and Clinical Aspects. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2014, 3, 14562–14566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Molinet Guerra, M.; Robles Fuentes, P.; Roa, I. Anatomical Variations of the Foramen Transversarium in Cervical Vertebrae. Int. J. Morphol. 2017, 35, 719–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kimura, K.; Konishi, M.; Hu, S.Y. Shape and Size of the Transverse Foramina in Japanese. Okajimas Foria Anat. Jpn. 1985, 62, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Ambali, M.P.; Jadhav, S.D. Anatomical Variations in Foramen Transversarium of Typical Cervical Vertebrae and Its Clinical Significance. Int. J. Anat. Res. 2017, 5, 3426–3429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chandravadiya, L.; Patel, S.; Goda, J.; Chavda, V.; Ruparelia, S.; Patel, S. Double Foramen Transversarium in Cervical Vertebra: Morphology and Clinical Importance. Int. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2013, 2, 103–105. [Google Scholar]
  50. Chaudhari, M.L.; Maheria, P.B.; Bachuwar, S.P. Double Foramen Transversarium in Cervical Vertebra: Morphology and Clinical Importance. Indian J. Basic Appl. Med. Res. 2013, 2, 1084–1088. [Google Scholar]
  51. Esakkiammal, N.; Chauhan, R. Clinical Significance of Presence of Accessory Foramen Transversarium in Typical Cervical Vertebrae. Int. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2016, 4, 5231–5236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gujar, S.M.; Oza, S.G.; Shekhawat, J.P. A Study of Accessory Foramen Transversarium in Dry Cervical Vertebrae and Its Clinical Implications. Natl. J. Integr. Res. Med. 2015, 6, 27–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Karthikeyan Variations in Foramen Transversarium. Univ. J. Pre. Para Clin. Sci. 2019, 5, 1.
  54. Katikireddi, R.S.; Setty, S.N.R.S. A Study of Double Foramen Transversarium in Dried Cervical Vertebra. Int. J. Health Sci. Res. 2014, 4, 59. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kumari, M.; Omar, S.; Deb, S.; Alam, K. An Osteological Study on Accessory Transverse Foramina in Cervical Vertebrae and Their Clinical Significance. Int. J. Recent Sci. Res. 2015, 6, 4514–4516. [Google Scholar]
  56. Malik, V.S.; Soni, G.; Garsa, V.; Rathee, S.; Gupta, S. An Osteological Study of Double Foramina Transversaria of Cervical Vertebrae. Int. J. Anat. Res. 2017, 5, 3527–3529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mehta, G.; Shamkuwar, S.; Mokhasi, V. Foramina Transversaria “Bipartita”: A Study of Cervical Vertebrae. Int. J. Curr. Res. Rev. 2014, 6, 31–34. [Google Scholar]
  58. Mishra, G.P.; Bhatnagar, S.; Singh, B.; Mishra, P.P.; Mishra, A. Anatomical Variations in Foramen Transversarium of Typical Cervical Vertebrae and Clinical Significance. Int. J. Biomed. Res. 2014, 5, 405–407. [Google Scholar]
  59. Murlimanju, B.V.; Prabhu, L.V.; Shilpa, K.; Rai, R.; Dhananjaya, K.V.N.; Jiji, P.J. Accessory Transverse Foramina in the Cervical Spine: Incidence, Embryological Basis, Morphology and Surgical Importance. Turk. Neurosurg. 2011, 21, 384–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Murugan, M.; Verma, S. A Study on Variations of Foramen Transversarium of Cervical Vertebrae. Natl. J. Clin. Anat. 2014, 3, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nayak, G.; Mohanty, B.B.; Baisakh, P.; Das, S.R.; Panda, S.K.; Chinara, P.K. Study of Accessory Foramina Transversaria in Cervical Vertebrae and Their Surgical and Morphological Importance. Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2016, 7, 1370–1373. [Google Scholar]
  62. Patil, N.P.; Dhapate, S.S.; Porwal, S.; Bhagwat, V.B. The Study of Incidence of Accessory Foramen Transversaria in the Cervical Vertebrae. IOSR J. Dent. Med. Sci. 2014, 13, 85–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Patra, A.; Kaur, H.; Chhabra, U.; Kaushal, S.; Kumar, U. Double Foramen Transversarium in Dried Cervical Vertebra: An Osteological Study with Its Clinical Implications. Indian J. Oral Sci. 2015, 6, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ramachandran, K.; Ravikumar, P.C.; Manavalan, M.S. A Study on the Foramen Transversarium in Cervical Vertebrae. Int. J. Health Sci. Res. 2014, 4, 178–183. [Google Scholar]
  65. Rathnakar, P.; Remya, K. Swathi Study of Accessory Foramen Transversaria in Cervical Vertebrae. Nitte Univ. J. Health Sci. 2013, 3, 97–99. [Google Scholar]
  66. Saxena, A.K.; Aneja, P.S.; Sharma, N.K.; Madan, H.S. Variations in the Number of Foramen Transversarium: An Osteological Study. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2016, 5, 531–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shah, S.T.; Arora, K.; Shah, K.P. Study of Accessory Foramen Transversarium in Cervical Vertebrae. GCSMC J. Med. Sci. 2014, 3, 21–24. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sharma, A.; Singh, K.; Gupta, V.; Srivastava, S. Double Foramen Transversarium in Cervical Vertebra an Osteological Study. J. Anat. Soc. India 2010, 59, 229–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Singh, A.P.; Anand, C.; Singh, S. A Study of Anatomical Variations in Transverse Foramen of Cervical Vertebrae for Morphological and Clinical Importance. Int. J. Contemp. Med. Res. 2019, 6, F9–F11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sumalatha, T.; Manasa, B. Variations in Foramen Transversarium of Cervical Vertebrae - An Observational Study. Int. J. Anat. Radiol. Surg. 2018, 7, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vikani, S.; Patel, S.; Suthar, K.; Maheria, P. Morphological Study of Accessory Foramen Transversarium in Dry Cervical Vertebra and Its Clinical Importance. Int. J. Anat. Res. 2016, 4, 2847–2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sheik Abdul, R.; Lazarus, L.; Rennie, C.; Satyapal, K.S. The Foramen Transversarium of Typical and Atypical Cervical Vertebrae: Morphology and Morphometry. Int. J. Morphol. 2018, 36, 1439–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sanchis-Gimeno, J.A.; Quiles-Guiñau, L.; Llido-Torrent, S.; Aparicio, L.; Nalla, S.; Miquel-Feutch, M. Possible Clinical Implications of Geographic Differences in Prevalence of Double Transverse Foramen. World Neurosurg. 2019, 126, e570–e572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Aparicio Bellver, L.; Calatayud Fombuena, M.; Pérez Moltó, F. Variaciones Morfológicas y Numéricas En La Columna Vertebral. Rev. Soc. Andal. Traumatol. Ortop. 1998, 18, 215–221. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sanchis-Gimeno, J.A.; Martínez-Soriano, F.; Aparicio-Bellver, L. Degenerative Anatomic Deformities in the Foramen Transversarium of Cadaveric Cervical Vertebrae. Osteoporos. Int. 2005, 16, 1171–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Aydınlıoğlu, A.; Kavaklı, A.; Yeşilyurt, H.; Erdem, S.; Eroğlu, C. Foramen Transversarium Bipartita. Van Tıp Derg. 2001, 8, 110–112. [Google Scholar]
  77. Lacy, S.A.; Trinkaus, E. The Foramina Transversaria of the Sunghir 2 and 3 Cervical Vertebrae. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 2013, 41, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jaén, M.T. Variedades Anatómicas En Vértebras de La Colección Tlatelolco. Inst. Nac. Antropol. Hist. 1974, 52, 71–82. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kwiatkowska, B.; Szczurowski, J.; Nowakowski, D. Variation in Foramina Transversaria of Human Cervical Vertebrae in the Medieval Population from Sypniewo (Poland). Anthropol. Rev. 2014, 77, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wysocki, J.; Bubrowski, M.; Reymond, J.; Kwiatkowski, J. Anatomical Variants of the Cervical Vertebrae and the First Thoracic Vertebra in Man. Folia Morphol. 2003, 62, 357–363. [Google Scholar]
  81. Quiles-Guiñau, L.; Gómez-Cabrero, A.; Miquel-Feucht, M.; Sanchis-Gimeno, J.A. Double Transverse Foramen in Cervical Vertebrae in a Spanish Rural Population of the Late 17th and 18th Centuries. Ital. J. Anat. Embryol. 2017, 122, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Abd El Gawad, F.A.; Shaaban, M.H.; Shuaib, D.M.; Shallan, H.M. Anatomical Variations of the Vertebral Artery and Its Relation to the Atlas Vertebra-Radiological and Dry Bone Study. Eur. J. Anat. 2019, 23, 49–58. [Google Scholar]
  83. Katsanos, A.H.; Kosmidou, M.; Kyritsis, A.P.; Giannopoulos, S. Is Vertebral Artery Hypoplasia a Predisposing Factor for Posterior Circulation Cerebral Ischemic Events? A Comprehensive Review. Eur. Neurol. 2013, 70, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ikegami, A.; Ohtani, Y.; Ohtani, O. Bilateral Variations of the Vertebral Arteries: The Left Originating from the Aortic Arch and the Left and Right Entering the C5 Transverse Foramina. Anat. Sci. Int. 2007, 82, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Shoja, M.M.; Tubbs, R.S.; Khaki, A.A.; Shokouhi, G.; Farahani, R.M.; Moein, A. A Rare Variation of the Vertebral Artery. Folia Morphol. 2006, 65, 167–170. [Google Scholar]
  86. Roh, J.; Jessup, C.; Yoo, J.; Bohlman, H. The Prevalence of Accessory Foramen Transversaria in the Human Cervical Spine. In Proceedings of the NASS 19th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 15–19 July 2004; Elsevier BV: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 4, p. 92. [Google Scholar]
  87. Quiles-Guiñau, L.; Gomez-Cabrero, A.; Miquel-Feucht, M.; Blanco-Pérez, E.; Mata-Escolano, F.; Sanchis-Gimeno, J.A. Analysis of the Cervical Double Transverse Foramen in Present Spanish Population. Eur. J. Anat. 2016, 20, 337–346. [Google Scholar]
  88. Chaiyamoon, A.; Yannasithinon, S.; Sae-Jung, S.; Samrid, R.; Thongbuakaew, T.; Iamsaard, S. Anatomical Variation and Morphometric Study on Foramen Transversarium of the Upper Cervical Vertebrae in the Thai Population. Asian Spine J. 2021, 15, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Moreira Moreira, J.J.; Herrero, C.F.P.S. Anatomical Variations and Morphometric Features of the Foramen Transversarium in the Cervical Vertebrae of a Latin American Population: A Brazilian Study. World Neurosurg. 2020, 137, e18–e26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Ouies, S.M. A Morphologic and Morphometric Study of the Foramen Transversarium of the Cervical Vertebrae: An Osteological Study in Upper Egypt. J. Am. Sci. 2018, 14, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ranjan, R.; Hussain, M.Z.; Kumari, S.; Singh, M.K.; Prasad, R. The Morphology and Incidence of the Accessory Foramen Transversarium in Human Dried Cervical Vertebrae as Well as Their Clinical Significance in the Eastern Indian Population. Asian J. Med. Sci. 2022, 13, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kim, C.; Lee, S.-H.; Park, S.S.; Kim, B.J.; Ryu, W.-S.; Kim, C.K.; Oh, M.-Y.; Chung, J.-W.; Yoon, B.-W. A Quantitative Comparison of the Vertebral Artery and Transverse Foramen Using CT Angiography. J. Clin. Neurol. 2012, 8, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kotil, K.; Kilincer, C. Sizes of the Transverse Foramina Correlate with Blood Flow and Dominance of Vertebral Arteries. Spine J. 2014, 14, 933–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zimmerman, H.B.; Farrell, W.J. Cervical Vertebral Erosion Caused by Vertebral Artery Tortuosity. Am. J. Roentgenol. Radium Ther. Nucl. Med. 1970, 108, 767–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Waldron, T.; Antoine, D. Tortuosity or Aneurysm? The Palaeopathology of Some Abnormalities of the Vertebral Artery. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 2002, 12, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cagnie, B.; Petrovic, M.; Voet, D.; Barbaix, E.; Cambier, D. Vertebral Artery Dominance and Hand Preference: Is There a Correlation? Man. Ther. 2006, 11, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Vural, A.; Çiçek, E.D. Is the Asymmetry between the Vertebral Arteries Related to Cerebral Dominance? Turk. J. Med. Sci. 2019, 49, 1721–1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Hong, J.T.; Lee, S.W.; Son, B.C.; Sung, J.H.; Yang, S.H.; Kim, I.S.; Park, C.K. Analysis of Anatomical Variations of Bone and Vascular Structures around the Posterior Atlantal Arch Using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Angiography. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2008, 8, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Jeng, J.S.; Yip, P.K. Evaluation of Vertebral Artery Hypoplasia and Asymmetry by Color-Coded Duplex Ultrasonography. Ultrasound. Med. Biol. 2004, 30, 605–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bruneau, M.; Cornelius, J.F.; Marneffe, V.; Triffaux, M.; George, B. Anatomical Variations of the V2 Segment of the Vertebral Artery. Neurosurgery 2006, 59, ONS20–ONS24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Lin, C.Y.; Liu, Y.S.; Chen, Y.C.; Shih, Y.H.; Chang, C.C.; Chuang, M.T. Variations in the Origin and Course of the Extracranial Vertebral Artery on Multidetector Computed Tomography Angiography. Iran. J. Radiol. 2018, 15, e61623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Shin, H.Y.; Park, J.K.; Park, S.K.; Jung, G.S.; Choi, Y.S. Variations in Entrance of Vertebral Artery in Korean Cervical Spine: MDCT-Based Analysis. Korean J. Pain 2014, 27, 266–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sassoli Fazan, V.P.S.; Gonçalves Caetano, A.; Rodrigues Filho, O.A. Anomalous Origin and Cervical Course of the Vertebral Artery in the Presence of a Retroesophageal Right Subclavian Artery. Clin. Anat. 2004, 17, 354–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kośla, K.N.; Majos, M.; Podgórski, M.; Polguj, M.; Topol, M.; Stefańczyk, L.; Majos, A. Anomalous Course and Diameter of Left-Sided Vertebral Arteries - Significance and Predisposing Factors in Clinical Practice. Ann. Anat. 2014, 196, 360–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Cavdar, S.; Dalcik, H.; Ercan, F.; Arbak, S.; Arifoglu, Y. A Morphological Study on the V2 Segment of the Vertebral Artery. Okajimas Folia Anat. Jpn. 1996, 73, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Choi, K.D.; Choi, J.H.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, M.J.; Lee, T.H.; Lee, H.; Moon, I.S.; Oh, H.J.; Kim, J. Il Rotational Vertebral Artery Occlusion: Mechanisms and Long-Term Outcome. Stroke 2013, 44, 1817–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Go, G.; Hwang, S.H.; Park, I.S.; Park, H. Rotational Vertebral Artery Compression: Bow Hunter’s Syndrome. J. Korean Neurosurg. Soc. 2013, 54, 243–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. De Boeck, M.; Potvliege, R.; Roles, F.; De Smedt, E. The Accessory Costrotransverse Foramen: A Radioanatomical Study. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 1984, 8, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Polguj, M.; Podgõrski, M.; Jȩdrzejewski, K.; Topol, M.; Majos, A. Fenestration and Duplication of the Vertebral Artery: The Anatomical and Clinical Points of View. Clin. Anat. 2013, 26, 933–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Sim, E.; Vaccaro, A.R.; Berzlanovich, A.; Thaler, H.; Ullrich, C.G. Fenestration of the Extracranial Vertebral Artery: Review of the Literature. Spine 2001, 26, E139–E142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Tran-Dinh, H.D.; Soo, Y.S.; Jayasinghe, L.S. Duplication of the Vertebro-Basilar System. Australas. Radiol. 1991, 35, 220–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zhang, W.; Xing, W.; Zhong, G.; He, J. Acute Cerebral Infarction of Posterior Circulation in a Patient with Vertebral Artery Fenestration Deformity: A Case Report. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ionete, C.; Omojola, M.F. MR Angiographic Demonstration of Bilateral Duplication of the Extracranial Vertebral Artery: Unusual Course and Review of the Literature. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2006, 27, 1304–1306. [Google Scholar]
  114. Cacciola, F.; Phalke, U.; Goel, A. Vertebral Artery in Relationship to C1-C2 Vertebrae: An Anatomical Study. Neurol. India 2004, 52, 178–184. [Google Scholar]
  115. Lanier, R.R.J. The Presacral Vertebrae of American White and Negro Males. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1939, 25, 341–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Lee, M.J.; Cassinelli, E.; Riew, K.D. The Feasibility of Inserting Atlas Lateral Mass Screws via the Posterior Arch. Spine 2006, 31, 2798–2801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Ossenfort, W.F. The Atlas in Whites and Negroes. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1926, 9, 439–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Awadalla, A.M.; Fetouh, F.A. Morphometric Analysis of the Vertebral Artery Groov of the First Cervical Vertebra (Atlas). Pan. Arab. J. Neurosurg. 2009, 13, 66–71. [Google Scholar]
  119. Lamberty, B.G.H.; Zivanovic, S. The Retro-Articular Vertebral Artery Ring of the Atlas and Its Significance. Acta Anat. 1973, 85, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Le Double, A.F. Traité Des Variations de La Colonne Vertébrale de l’Homme et de Leur Signification Au Point de Vue de l’Anthropologie Zoologique; Vigot Frères: Paris, France, 1912. [Google Scholar]
  121. Le Minor, J.M. The Retrotransverse Foramen of the Human Atlas Vertebra: A Distinctive Variant within Primates. Acta Anat. 1997, 160, 208–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Le Minor, J.M.; Trost, O. Bony Ponticles of the Atlas (C1) over the Groove for the Vertebral Artery in Humans and Primates: Polymorphism and Evolutionary Trends. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2004, 125, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lyrtzis, C.; Tsakotos, G.; Kostares, M.; Piagkou, M.; Mariorakis, C.; Natsis, K. The Prevalence and Morphometry of the Atlas Vertebra Retrotransverse Foramen. Acta Med. Acad. 2022, 51, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Agrawal, R.; Suba Ananthi, K.; Agrawal, S.; Usha, K. Posterior Arch of Atlas with Abnormal Foramina in South Indians. J. Anat. Soc. India 2012, 61, 30–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Bilodi, A.K.; Gupta, S.C. Presence of Retro Transverse Groove or Canal in Atlas Vertebrae. J. Anat. Soc. India 2005, 54, 16–18. [Google Scholar]
  126. Gupta, S.C.; Gupta, C.D.; Arora, A.K.; Maheshwari, B.B. The Retrotransverse Groove (Canal) in Indian Atlas Vertebrae. Anat. Anz. 1979, 145, 514–516. [Google Scholar]
  127. Hasan, M.; Shukla, S.; Shakil Siddiqui, M.; Simgh, D. Posterolateral Tunnels and Ponticuli in Human Atlas Vertebrae. J. Anat. 2001, 199, 339–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Krishnamurty, A.; Nayak, S.R.; Khan, S.; Prabhu, L.V.; Ramanathan, L.A.; Ganesh Kumar, C.; Prasad Sinha, A. Arcuate Foramen of Atlas: Incidence, Phylogenetic and Clinical Significance. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2007, 48, 263–266. [Google Scholar]
  129. Lalit, M.; Piplani, S.; Arora, A.K.; Kullar, J.S.; Sharma, T. Incidence of Atlas Bridges and Tunnels - Their Phylogeny, Ontogeny and Clinical Implications. Rev. Argent. Anatomía Clínica 2014, 6, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Patel, N.P.; Gupta, D.S.; Parmar, N.D. Incidence of Ponticles in Human Atlas Vertebrae - A Study from South Gujarat Population. Indian J. Clin. Anat. Physiol. 2015, 2, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Rekha, B.S.; Rajeshwari, T. Study of Ponticuli in Human Atlas Vertebrae. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2013, 2, 8849–8855. [Google Scholar]
  132. Venkatachalam, N. Ponticuli in Human Atlas Vertebrae and Its Significance. Int. J. Health Sci. Res. 2015, 5, 246–350. [Google Scholar]
  133. Gunness-Hey, M. The Koniag Eskimo Presacral Vertebral Column: Variations, Anomalies and Pathologies. Ossa 1982, 7, 99–118. [Google Scholar]
  134. Karau, P.B.; Ogengo, J.A.; Hassanali, J.; Odula, P. Anatomy and Prevalence of Atlas Vertebrae Bridges in a Kenyan Population: An Osteological Study. Clin. Anat. 2010, 23, 649–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Maqbool, A.; Athar, Z.; Hameed, O. Prevalence and Morphometry of Arcuate Foramen in Atlas Vertebrae in Pakistanis. Med. Forum Mon. 2014, 25, 35–39. [Google Scholar]
  136. Veleanu, C.; Barzu, S.; Panescu, S.; Udroiu, C. The Retrotransverse Groove or Canal of the Atlas and Its Significance. Acta Anat. 1977, 97, 400–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Radojevic, S.; Negovanovic, B. La Gouttière et Les Anneaux Osseux de l’artère Vertébrale de l’atlas (Etude Anatomique et Radiologique). Acta Anat. 1963, 55, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Mitchell, J. The Incidence and Dimensions of the Retroarticular Canal of the Atlas Vertebra. Acta Anat. 1998, 163, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Sanchis-Gimeno, J.A.; Llido, S.; Nalla, S. Double Retrotransverse Foramen of Atlas (C1). World Neurosurg. 2018, 114, e869–e872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Sanchis-Gimeno, J.A.; Llido, S.; Perez-Bermejo, M.; Nalla, S. Prevalence of Anatomic Variations of the Atlas Vertebra. Spine J. 2018, 18, 2102–2111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sanchis-Gimeno, J.A.; Blanco-Perez, E.; Perez-Bermejo, M.; Llido, S.; Nalla, S. Retrotransverse Foramen of the Atlas: Prevalence and Bony Variations. Eur. Spine J. 2018, 27, 1272–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Sanchis-Gimeno, J.A.; Llido, S.; Miquel-Feutch, M.; Quiles-Guinau, L.; Rios, L.; Murillo-Llorente, M.; Perez-Bermejo, M.; Nalla, S. The Decreasing Prevalence of the Arcuate Foramen. World Neurosurg. 2018, 110, 521–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Cakmak, O.; Gurdal, E.; Ekinci, G.; Yildiz, E.; Cavdar, S. Arcuate Foramen and Its Clinical Significance. Saudi Med. J. 2005, 26, 1409–1413. [Google Scholar]
  144. Cirpan, S.; Yonguc, G.N.; Edizer, M.; Mas, N.G.; Magden, A.O. Foramen Arcuale: A Rare Morphological Variation Located in Atlas Vertebrae. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2017, 39, 877–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Kavakli, A.; Aydinlioglu, A.; Yesilyurt, H.; Kus, I.; Diyarbakirli, S.; Erdem, S. Variants and Deformities of Atlas Vertebrae in Eastern Anatolian People. Saudi Med. J. 2004, 25, 322–325. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  146. Senoglu, M.; Gümüsalan, Y.; Yüksel, Z.Z.; Uzel, M.; Çelik, M.; Özbag, D. The Effect of Posterior Bridging of C-1 on Craniovertebral Surgery. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2006, 5, 50–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Simsek, S.; Yigitkanli, K.; Comert, A.; Acar, H.I.; Seckin, H.; Er, U.; Belen, D.; Tekdemir, I.; Elhan, A. Posterior Osseous Bridging of C1. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2008, 15, 686–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Taylor, K.M. Assessing Population Variation Using Heritable Nonmetric Traits: A Bronze Age Assemblage from Tell Abraq, United Arab Emirates. Master of Arts Dissertation, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  149. Saccheri, P.; Travan, L. The Craniovertebral Junction, between Osseous Variants and Abnormalities: Insight from a Paleo-Osteological Study. Anat. Sci. Int. 2022, 97, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Éry, K. Anthropological Studies on an Early Avar Period Population at Backo Petrovo Selo (Yugoslavia) Part 2: Analysis of the Data. Anthropol. Hung. 1990, 21, 33–53. [Google Scholar]
  151. Quiles-Guiñau, L.; Gómez-Cabrero, A.; Miquel-Feucht, M.; Aparicio-Bellver, L. Retrotransverse Foramen in Atlas Vertebrae of the Late 17th and 18th Centuries. Ital. J. Anat. Embryol. 2016, 121, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Sanchis-Gimeno, J.A.; Llido, S.; Nalla, S. The Retrotransverse Foramen of the Atlas Is Not a Modern Anatomic Variation. World Neurosurg. 2019, 123, 174–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Allen, W. On the Varieties of the Atlas in the Human Subject, and the Homologies of Its Transverse Processes. J. Anat. Physiol. 1879, 14, 18–27. [Google Scholar]
  154. Cleland, M. On the Serial Homologies of the Articular Surfaces of the Mammalian Atlas, Axis and Occipital Bone. Proc. R. Soc. Edin. 1860, 2, 221. [Google Scholar]
  155. Saunders, S.R.; Popovich, F. A Family Study of Two Skeletal Variants: Atlas Bridging and Clinoid Bridging. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1978, 49, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Selby, S.; Garn, S.M.; Kanareff, V. The Incidence and Familial Nature of a Bony Bridge on the First Cervical Vertebra. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1955, 13, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Cvrček, J.; Velemínský, P.; Dupej, J.; Vostrý, L.; Brůžek, J. Kinship and Morphological Similarity in the Skeletal Remains of Individuals with Known Genealogical Data (Bohemia, 19th to 20th Centuries): A New Methodological Approach. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2018, 167, 541–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Cvrček, J.; Velemínský, P.; Dupej, J.; Jor, T.; Brůžek, J. Kinship and the Familial Occurrence of Skeletal Developmental Anomalies in the Noble Swéerts-Sporck Family (Bohemia, 17th to 20th Centuries). Int. J. Paleopathol. 2021, 34, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Velemínský, P.; Dobisíková, M. Morphological Likeness of the Skeletal Remains in a Central European Family from 17th to 19th Century. Homo 2005, 56, 173–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Ríos, L.; Ovejero, J.I.C.; Prieto, J.P. Identification Process in Mass Graves from the Spanish Civil War I. Forensic Sci. Int. 2010, 199, e27–e36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Pyo, J.; Lowman, R.M. The “Ponticulus Posticus” of the First Cervical Vertebra. Radiology 1959, 72, 850–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Schilling, J.; Schilling, A.; Suazo Galdames, I. Ponticulus Posticus on the Posterior Arch of Atlas, Prevalence Analysis in Asymptomatic Patients. Int. J. Morphol. 2010, 28, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Bodon, G.; Grimm, A.; Hirt, B.; Seifarth, H.; Barsa, P. Applied Anatomy of Screw Placement via the Posterior Arch of the Atlas and Anatomy-Based Refinements of the Technique. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2016, 26, 793–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Xing, X.; Huang, M.; Adu, I.K.; Wang, J.; Cui, G. Retrotransverse Foramen and Retrotransverse Groove Anatomic Variations of the Atlas Vertebra in the Chinese Population. World Neurosurg. 2021, 152, e193–e200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Falk, D. Evolution of Cranial Blood Drainage in Hominids: Enlarged Occipital/Marginal Dinuses and Emissary Foramina. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1986, 70, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Valdueza, J.M.; von Münster, T.; Hoffman, O.; Schereiber, S.; Einhäupl, K.M. Postural Dependency of the Cerebral Venous Outflow. Lancet 2000, 355, 200–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Pękala, J.R.; Tempski, J.; Krager, E.; Johansen, J.; Łazarz, D.P.; Walocha, J.A.; Tubbs, R.S.; Tomaszewski, K.A. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Prevalence of the Retrotransverse Foramen of the Atlas. J. Anat. 2023, 243, 570–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Normal anatomy and variations of the FT on the cervical vertebrae from the skeletal remains of the post-Classical cemetery of Corfinio. (a) Superior view of vertebra C4. Bilateral normal FT belonging to individual Corf-038. (b) Superior view of vertebra C7. Bilateral hypoplastic FT (arrows) belonging to individual Corf-021. (c) Superior view of vertebra C5. Bilateral complete double FT belonging to individual Corf-014. (d) Superior view of vertebra C4. Incomplete double FT on the left side (arrow) belonging to individual Corf-013. (e) Superior view of vertebra C6. Incomplete double FT on the right side (arrowhead) and complete double FT on the left side (arrow) belonging to individual Corf-079. (f) Superior view of vertebra C5. Multiple FT on the left side (arrow) belonging to individual Corf-018.
Figure 1. Normal anatomy and variations of the FT on the cervical vertebrae from the skeletal remains of the post-Classical cemetery of Corfinio. (a) Superior view of vertebra C4. Bilateral normal FT belonging to individual Corf-038. (b) Superior view of vertebra C7. Bilateral hypoplastic FT (arrows) belonging to individual Corf-021. (c) Superior view of vertebra C5. Bilateral complete double FT belonging to individual Corf-014. (d) Superior view of vertebra C4. Incomplete double FT on the left side (arrow) belonging to individual Corf-013. (e) Superior view of vertebra C6. Incomplete double FT on the right side (arrowhead) and complete double FT on the left side (arrow) belonging to individual Corf-079. (f) Superior view of vertebra C5. Multiple FT on the left side (arrow) belonging to individual Corf-018.
Heritage 08 00178 g001
Figure 2. Osseous variations—PP, PL, and RTF—on the first cervical vertebra from the skeletal remains of the post-Classical cemetery of Corfinio. (a) Superior and lateral views of vertebra C1. Bilateral incomplete PP (arrows) belonging to individual Corf-062. (b) Superior and lateral views of vertebra C1. Incomplete PP (arrow) and complete PL (arrowhead; note: the thin bony bridge was broken during manipulation photography) on the left side, and complete PP and incomplete PL on the right side (arrowheads), belonging to individual Corf-024. (c) Superior (right) and inferior (left) views of vertebra C1. Incomplete RTF on the right side (arrow) and complete RTF on the left side (arrowhead), belonging to individual Corf-081.
Figure 2. Osseous variations—PP, PL, and RTF—on the first cervical vertebra from the skeletal remains of the post-Classical cemetery of Corfinio. (a) Superior and lateral views of vertebra C1. Bilateral incomplete PP (arrows) belonging to individual Corf-062. (b) Superior and lateral views of vertebra C1. Incomplete PP (arrow) and complete PL (arrowhead; note: the thin bony bridge was broken during manipulation photography) on the left side, and complete PP and incomplete PL on the right side (arrowheads), belonging to individual Corf-024. (c) Superior (right) and inferior (left) views of vertebra C1. Incomplete RTF on the right side (arrow) and complete RTF on the left side (arrowhead), belonging to individual Corf-081.
Heritage 08 00178 g002
Figure 3. Mean (a) anteroposterior and (b) mediolateral diameters and the (c) coefficient of roundness of the normal FT at each vertebral level, divided by sex and laterality. Data are presented as means with 95% confidence intervals. In (c), dashed lines indicate the boundaries between mesomorph and brachymorph FT (upper dashed line; R = 85) and between mesomorph and dolichomorph FT (lower dashed line; R = 75).
Figure 3. Mean (a) anteroposterior and (b) mediolateral diameters and the (c) coefficient of roundness of the normal FT at each vertebral level, divided by sex and laterality. Data are presented as means with 95% confidence intervals. In (c), dashed lines indicate the boundaries between mesomorph and brachymorph FT (upper dashed line; R = 85) and between mesomorph and dolichomorph FT (lower dashed line; R = 75).
Heritage 08 00178 g003
Table 1. Distribution of the original sample of cervical vertebrae according to sex and age group.
Table 1. Distribution of the original sample of cervical vertebrae according to sex and age group.
MalesFemalesUnknown Sex
Cervical LevelYAMAASAYAMAASAYAMAASATotal
C136016100017
C245027101020
C335017200018
C435017201019
C545017201020
C645017201020
C747015221022
Total2538084612250136
YA, young adult (21–40 years); MAA, middle-aged adult (41–60 years); SE, senile adult (>60 years) (modified from Vallois [30]).
Table 2. Prevalence of osseous variants of the FT in the cervical vertebrae.
Table 2. Prevalence of osseous variants of the FT in the cervical vertebrae.
Cervical
Level
Excluded Vertebrae due to Limiting FactorsNormal Vertebrae
[n (%)]
Osseous Variants of the Foramen Transversarium [n (%)] Total
[n (%)]
Absence Hypoplastic Complete Double Incomplete Double MultipleComplete + Incomplete Double
ULBL ULBL ULBL ULBL ULBL
C139 (8.33)0 (0)0 (0) 1 (0.93)0 (0) 3 (2.78)0 (0) 1 (0.93)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)14 (12.97)
C2416 (14.81)0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)16 (14.81)
C3215 (13.89)0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 1 (0.93)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)16 (14.81)
C4314 (12.96)0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 1 (0.93)1 (0.93) 0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)16 (14.81)
C548 (7.41)0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)2 (1.85) 5 (4.63)0 (0) 1 (0.93)0 (0)0 (0)16 (14.81)
C673 (2.78)0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 3 (2.78)0 (0) 6 (5.56)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0)1 (0.93)13 (12.04)
C7511 (10.19)0 (0)0 (0) 1 (0.93)0 (0) 1 (0.93)0 (0) 2 (1.85)1 (0.93) 0 (0)0 (0)1 (0.93)17 (15.75)
Total2876 (70.37)0 (0)0 (0) 2 (1.85)0 (0) 7 (6.48)2 (1.85) 16 (14.81)2 (1.85) 1 (0.93)0 (0)2 (1.85)108 (100)
n, number of vertebrae; UL, unilateral; BL, bilateral.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and comparison of differences in anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters, as well as the coefficient of roundness, in normal FT across all cervical vertebrae, presented according to sex and laterality.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and comparison of differences in anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters, as well as the coefficient of roundness, in normal FT across all cervical vertebrae, presented according to sex and laterality.
MalesFemalesComparison of Differences
Cervical Level RightLeftRightLeftBy SexBy Laterality
DiameternMeasurenMeasurenMeasurenMeasureUpUp
C1A–P57.55 ± 1.0967.17 ± 1.0756.56 ± 0.9636.63 ± 0.2133.000.36434.000.369
M–L56.14 ± 1.4866.48 ± 0.9056.44 ± 1.0936.03 ± 0.5439.000.68043.000.870
R580.27 ± 9.92691.01 ± 12.12598.91 ± 14.19390.92 ± 7.7723.000.08341.000.744
C2A–P75.18 ± 0.8166.02 ± 1.0486.63 ± 1.2775.68 ± 0.7163.000.112108.500.884
M–L75.85 ± 1.3066.38 ± 0.9186.39 ± 0.8376.07 ± 2.0488.000.662107.500.852
R7112.94 ± 21.636106.88 ± 12.03898.42 ± 16.527106.91 ± 33.9682.000.47592.000.406
C3A–P74.98 ± 0.8755.63 ± 0.5445.36 ± 0.8164.92 ± 0.5454.000.69253.000.622
M–L76.18 ± 0.9156.92 ± 0.7546.71 ± 0.5656.60 ± 0.3647.500.64437.500.218
R7124.82 ± 8.925123.01 ± 6.724126.77 ± 16.595139.21 ± 16.9235.000.17746.000.526
C4A–P54.96 ± 0.7865.78 ± 1.0485.54 ± 0.7755.35 ± 1.0770.000.93166.000.514
M–L56.49 ± 1.0367.05 ± 1.1176.46 ± 0.7156.55 ± 0.6352.000.38956.000.356
R5131.30 ± 13.566122.72 ± 12.207120.42 ± 19.365127.16 ± 34.9157.000.58055.000.326
C5A–P45.26 ± 0.8546.14 ± 0.7515.6525.27 ± 0.468.000.4149.000.273
M–L56.23 ± 1.0746.97 ± 0.5716.5525.50 ± 1.228.000.30916.000.749
R4114.00 ± 13.634114.34 ± 11.081115.932105.88 ± 32.3411.000.83813.000.715
C6A–P35.80 ± 1.6926.10 ± 1.50025.76 ± 1.324.000.6997.000.773
M–L36.06 ± 0.9926.76 ± 1.8514.3526.10 ± 0.825.000.4568.000.624
R3106.60 ± 12.742110.42 ± 3.2302107.07 ± 10.215.001.0006.000.564
C7A–P33.25 ± 0.2763.73 ± 0.9343.94 ± 0.7933.59 ± 1.0524.000.42734.000.922
M–L33.95 ± 0.6464.51 ± 1.0244.80 ± 1.0334.61 ± 1.4123.000.36831.000.696
R3122.32 ± 22.886123.01 ± 20.164122.29 ± 15.743128.48 ± 18.5329.000.79126.000.380
Data are means ± standard deviation (where relevant). Measurements are in mm. n, number of foramina transversaria; —, data not available. A–P, anteroposterior diameter; M–L, mediolateral diameter; R, coefficient of roundness; U, Mann–Whitney U-test; p, p-value.
Table 4. Prevalence of PP, PL, and RTF in vertebra C1.
Table 4. Prevalence of PP, PL, and RTF in vertebra C1.
Presence of Osseous Variants in Vertebra C1 [n (%)]
Normal Vertebra C1 [n (%)]Complete Incomplete
Osseous VariantUnilateralBilateral UnilateralBilateralComplete + IncompleteTotal
Ponticulus posticus8 (47.06)3 (17.65)0 (0) 2 (11.76)2 (11.76)2 (11.76)17 (100.0)
Ponticulus lateralis16 (94.12)0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0)1 (5.88)17 (100.0)
Retrotransverse foramen6 (35.29)0 (0)1 (5.88) 7 (41.18)2 (11.76)1 (5.88)17 (100.0)
n, number of vertebrae.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Amores, A.; Tanga, C.; Somma, M.C.; La Salvia, V.; Antonelli, S.; Viciano, J. Osseous Variants of the Cervical Spine with Potential Pathological Significance: Possible Evidence of Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency in a Skeletal Sample from the Post-Classical Cemetery of Corfinio (12th–15th Centuries CE, L’Aquila, Italy). Heritage 2025, 8, 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8050178

AMA Style

Amores A, Tanga C, Somma MC, La Salvia V, Antonelli S, Viciano J. Osseous Variants of the Cervical Spine with Potential Pathological Significance: Possible Evidence of Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency in a Skeletal Sample from the Post-Classical Cemetery of Corfinio (12th–15th Centuries CE, L’Aquila, Italy). Heritage. 2025; 8(5):178. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8050178

Chicago/Turabian Style

Amores, Anabel, Carmen Tanga, Maria Carla Somma, Vasco La Salvia, Sonia Antonelli, and Joan Viciano. 2025. "Osseous Variants of the Cervical Spine with Potential Pathological Significance: Possible Evidence of Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency in a Skeletal Sample from the Post-Classical Cemetery of Corfinio (12th–15th Centuries CE, L’Aquila, Italy)" Heritage 8, no. 5: 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8050178

APA Style

Amores, A., Tanga, C., Somma, M. C., La Salvia, V., Antonelli, S., & Viciano, J. (2025). Osseous Variants of the Cervical Spine with Potential Pathological Significance: Possible Evidence of Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency in a Skeletal Sample from the Post-Classical Cemetery of Corfinio (12th–15th Centuries CE, L’Aquila, Italy). Heritage, 8(5), 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8050178

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop