Key results
In this cross-sectional CT morphometric study, we identified clinically meaningful sex differences in the retrograde superior ramus screw corridor. Female models had smaller corridor diameter along the trajectory than male models, with smaller segment-wise effective diameters and a smaller model-level bottleneck diameter. These morphometric differences had clinically relevant implications for diameter-dependent feasibility. Feasibility was universal at 3.5 mm and 4.5 mm diameters in both sexes but decreased markedly at 6.5 mm and 7.3 mm, with a greater relative decline in females.
Interpretation/comparison with previous studies
Our findings are consistent with prior CT-based morphometric studies showing that narrowest canal diameter is larger in males than in females [
5,
7,
12,
14]. Similarly, the marked decline in female feasibility at screw diameters ≥6.5 mm aligns with a large CT morphometric study (n=231) reporting that 6.5 mm and 7.3 mm screws may not be safely accommodated in a substantial proportion of female patients [
15]. Taken together, these findings provide practical guidance for screw diameter selection along the trajectory.
A key strength of our approach is that it localizes constrictions along the entire trajectory rather than at a single anatomic cross-section. We resliced a series of orthogonal cross-sections at 9.5 mm intervals along the selected cylinder centerline and calculated the segment-wise effective diameter as twice the minimum distance from the centerline to any cortical boundaries. The minimum effective diameter across the trajectory defined the model-level bottleneck. We also quantified segment-wise cortical clearance as the minimum residual distance between the cylinder surface and the nearest cortical boundaries. This clearance served as the safety margin. This combined description of corridor diameter and safety margin is clinically useful. A segment may accommodate a given screw diameter but provide minimal safety margin to the cortex, increasing the risk of cortical violation if intraoperative trajectory adjustments are required. Therefore, our analysis provides both the spatial variation in corridor diameter along the superior ramus trajectory and, for each segment, the cortical boundary most susceptible to violation.
Our feasibility thresholds were derived from intact cadaveric pelves along a prespecified, idealized trajectory and therefore represent an idealized anatomic corridor. In clinical superior ramus fractures, displacement, residual malreduction, and limitations of intraoperative fluoroscopy may alter corridor geometry, narrowing the usable diameter and shifting the location of the limiting segment. Therefore, the reported thresholds should be interpreted as an anatomic reference rather than fixed intraoperative cutoffs for displaced fractures.
The segment numbers (Seg 1–12) may not correspond to anatomically comparable locations across individuals because the acetabular articular surface begins at variable positions. Accordingly, we realigned segment position to the ASS (Seg ASS) using a relative coordinate (Δ seg=Seg–Seg ASS). Using segment numbering, both effective diameter and cortical clearance (safety margin) showed a nonmonotonic profile with two constriction zones. The first zone was a proximal constriction (Seg 2–4), and the second zone was a periacetabular constriction (Seg 9–10). After realignment to acetabular start, these zones were standardized as a preacetabular zone (Δ seg −6 to −4; Seg 2–4) and a periacetabular zone (Δ seg 1 to 2; Seg 9–10). These findings suggest that anchoring segment position to the ASS improves consistency in identifying anatomically corresponding bottleneck sites along the corridor.
Sex-specific patterns were observed within these acetabular-referenced intervals. In the preacetabular segments (Δ seg −6 to −4), the greatest male constriction was at Δ seg −4, followed by Δ seg −6. Females also showed narrowing at Δ seg −4 and Δ seg −5. In the periacetabular zone (Δ seg 1 to 2), both sexes exhibited concurrent decreases in diameter and safety margin, but the decreases were greater in females. These findings identify the segment immediately distal to the acetabular start as a clinically important risk zone, particularly in females, where both corridor diameter and safety margin decrease most markedly.
Diameter-specific feasibility represented the clinical impact of these morphometric differences. Feasibility was universal at 3.5 mm and 4.5 mm in both sexes but decreased markedly at larger diameters, especially in females. Males were approximately three times more likely to accommodate a 6.5-mm cylinder than females, and nearly six times more likely to accommodate a 7.3-mm cylinder. These results suggest that the safety margin may be limited when selecting screws ≥6.5 mm in females and support patient-specific, corridor-based preoperative planning for screw diameter selection.
Failure patterns differed by sex and diameter in both Δ seg location and the dominant limiting cortical boundary. At 6.5 mm, most failures occurred in females (29/37). In females, failures clustered immediately after acetabular start (Δ seg 1 to 2) and were most often limited by the superior cortex, accounting for approximately half of infeasible cases at 6.5 mm and 7.3 mm. A second female cluster was observed in the entry-side preacetabular range (Δ seg −6 to −5). These models had smaller bottleneck diameters and showed a shift in dominant limiting boundary from the superior cortex to the medial-lateral cortices (inner/outer). Male failures at 6.5 mm were irregular and were distributed across Δ seg without a single dominant boundary phenotype. At 7.3 mm, failures remained largely female, with persistent clustering at Δ seg 2 and predominantly superior-boundary limitation. In contrast, males demonstrated an additional cluster centered around Δ seg −4 that was characterized by medial-boundary limitation. Overall, these patterns suggest sex-specific failure patterns, with periacetabular superior-boundary limitation more prominent in females and proximal medial-boundary limitation more evident in males.
The retrograde superior ramus screw corridor lies close to major neurovascular structures, including the obturator neurovascular bundle and the external iliac vessels [
14]. In this CT-based morphometric study, we modeled the osseous corridor only along a standardized trajectory; therefore, our findings do not quantify clinical neurovascular risk, which is additionally influenced by soft-tissue anatomy, fracture displacement and reduction, and intraoperative conditions. However, cortical contact with, or breach of, specific corridor boundaries may be anatomically relevant when interpreting where a larger-diameter screw is most constrained. For screws ≥6.5 mm, infeasible male models more frequently demonstrated medial-boundary limitation in the preacetabular region, whereas infeasible female models more frequently demonstrated superior-boundary limitation in the periacetabular region. These boundary-specific patterns are consistent with prior anatomic descriptions placing the obturator neurovascular bundle approximately 36–44 mm lateral to the pubic symphysis and 2–4 mm posterior to the superior ramus, and the external iliac vessels approximately 63–73 mm lateral and 3–8 mm posterior [
16]. These landmark ranges broadly correspond to our preacetabular (Δ seg −6 to −4) and periacetabular (Δ seg 1 to 2) intervals. Accordingly, our results should be viewed as hypothesis-generating anatomic context that may help prioritize direction-specific corridor assessment in these Δ seg zones during preoperative planning, rather than as evidence of segment-level or sex-specific neurovascular injury risk.
Minor intraoperative deviations in the entry point or trajectory may materially influence both bottleneck location and safety margins because the corridor is narrow, irregular, and curved. Even small angular changes can disproportionately affect the periacetabular portion of the trajectory, where cortical boundaries are closely apposed. These deviations may shift the limiting segment and reduce cortical clearance, even when the idealized intact-model corridor appears adequate. Therefore, our segment-wise bottleneck mapping should be viewed as trajectory dependent and is most applicable when the planned trajectory closely matches the prespecified trajectory.
Limitations
Our study has several limitations. First, the effective diameter and cortical clearance reported in this study were trajectory dependent and were determined along a single prespecified path. Therefore, our diameter thresholds should not be used as fixed intraoperative cutoffs. Instead, they should be interpreted as morphology-based reference values and confirmed on a patient-specific basis when substantial trajectory modification is required. Second, as a morphometric analysis, our study did not account for fracture displacement, reduction, or intraoperative imaging constraints. Accordingly, feasibility estimates for specific screw diameters in displaced superior ramus fractures may differ and should be interpreted as morphology-based, exploratory reference values rather than definitive clinical thresholds. Third, our cadaveric cohort had a relatively young mean age, 52.1 years (SD, 9.2; range, 21–60 years), compared with the typical fragility-fracture population in whom minimally invasive anterior ring fixation, including retrograde superior ramus screws, is commonly considered. Age-related changes may influence absolute corridor dimensions and, importantly, bone quality in ways not captured by morphology alone; therefore, the feasibility proportions and suggested diameter thresholds reported here may not directly translate to older, osteoporotic patients. Nonetheless, we expect the observed sex-related patterning of constriction zones to remain directionally informative for anatomic risk mapping. Future validation in geriatric cohorts with osteoporosis, ideally incorporating bone quality metrics, is warranted before clinical generalization. Fourth, our segment-wise and acetabular-referenced (Δ seg) analyses are based on repeated measurements obtained within the same pelvis; therefore, values from contiguous segments are anatomically correlated and not statistically independent. Although we controlled multiplicity across segment-level comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg FDR procedure, this adjustment does not address within-pelvis correlation. Accordingly, segment-level P-values should be interpreted cautiously, and these analyses should be viewed primarily as descriptive topographic mapping of spatial patterns (narrowing and cortical clearance) along the corridor rather than as evidence supporting segment-specific causal inference. Future studies may incorporate correlation-aware approaches, such as mixed-effects or marginal models, to strengthen segment-level inference while preserving spatial resolution. Fifth, segment-wise effective diameter was computed from four orthogonal centerline-to-cortex distances on each cross-section. Because the true minimum distance may occur along an oblique direction in nonelliptical or irregular corridor shapes, our approach may not capture the strict minimum in every segment and could modestly overestimate D eff, seg and the corresponding clearance in some locations.
Conclusions
In this cross-sectional CT-based morphometric study, we identified clinically meaningful sex-specific differences in the retrograde superior ramus screw corridor. Female models had a smaller trajectory-wide bottleneck diameter and smaller segment-wise effective diameters than male models, whereas intraosseous trajectory length was comparable between sexes. After acetabular-referenced realignment (Δ seg), we identified two constriction zones, including a preacetabular narrowing (Δ seg −6 to −4) and a periacetabular risk zone (Δ seg 1 to 2). In these zones, corridor capacity and cortical clearance, a segment-level safety margin, were lowest, most prominently in females. These constraints translated into diameter-dependent feasibility. Cylinders of 3.5 mm and 4.5 mm were feasible in most models in both sexes, whereas feasibility decreased substantially at 6.5 mm and 7.3 mm, with a greater decline in females. Because these estimates are trajectory dependent and derived from intact pelvic models rather than clinical outcome data, and because pelvic morphology varies across populations, the results should be generalized cautiously.