<- Back to digest

European Spine Journal - 2026-07-23 - Journal Article; Review

The vertebral artery loops: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Albu AC, Rusu MC

meta-analysisLOE IIIn = 10 studies, 7,475 vertebral arteries, 126 loopsN/A

Topics

spine
PMID: 42489701DOI: 10.1007/s00586-026-10221-xView on PubMed ->

Key Takeaway

Pooled prevalence of vertebral artery loops in unselected radiological populations is 1.71% (95% CI 0.87–2.55%), with V2 segment at C4–C6 as the predominant location and osseous signs serving as the key pre-test probability modifiers.

Summary Depth

Choose how much analysis to show on this article page.

Summary

This PRISMA-guided meta-analysis of 10 primary studies pooled 7,475 vertebral arteries to estimate the prevalence of vertebral artery loops (VALs) and characterize their clinical and anatomical correlates. Using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation as sensitivity analysis, pooled prevalence was 1.71% overall, converging to 1.09–1.19% after excluding two anatomical/morphometric outlier series. Substantial heterogeneity (I² = 93.4%) was largely explained by study methodology, with radiological cohorts yielding 1.09% versus approximately 39% in small anatomical series.

Key Limitation

The pooled estimate is derived from only 10 heterogeneous studies with I² of 93.4%, and the absence of a standardized radiological definition of a 'loop' across studies means the 1–2% figure may not be reproducible across different imaging protocols or reader thresholds.

Original Abstract

PURPOSE

Vertebral artery loops (VALs) are focal deviations of the vertebral artery course that may produce pulsatile nerve-root compression and substantially increase the risk of iatrogenic vascular injury during cervical spine procedures. Although individually uncommon, they are a recognised "hidden danger" whose recognition changes preoperative planning. We aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of VALs, to explain the wide variation in reported figures, and to translate these data into a practical framework for preoperative decision-making in cervical spine surgery.

METHODS

A PRISMA-guided systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified 58 publications for qualitative synthesis. Ten primary studies reporting the number of examined vertebral arteries (VAs) and identified loops were pooled in a meta-analysis of proportions. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was applied to raw proportions; a Freeman-Tukey double arcsine (DAS) transformation was used as a variance-stabilising sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q and I², and explored with a pre-specified subgroup analysis by study methodology (radiological imaging cohorts vs. anatomical/morphometric series).

RESULTS

Ten studies comprising 7,475 VAs and 126 loops were pooled. The random-effects prevalence of VALs was 1.71% (95% CI 0.87%-2.55%), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 93.4%; Q = 136.9; p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed that this heterogeneity is largely methodological: radiological imaging cohorts pooled at 1.09% (95% CI 0.60%-1.58%; I² = 82%), whereas the two small anatomical/morphometric series - which were also the two statistical outliers - pooled at approximately 39%. After removing these two studies, the raw-proportion (1.09%) and Freeman-Tukey (1.19%) estimates converged, confirming a robust prevalence of roughly 1-2% in unselected radiological populations. Clinically relevant loops were most often located in the V2 segment at mid-cervical levels (C4-C6); medial loops were associated with vertebral body scalloping and enlargement of the foramen transversarium, and lateral/foraminal loops with cervical radiculopathy.

CONCLUSION

VALs are uncommon but disproportionately dangerous. The pooled prevalence is best understood not as a population statistic but as a baseline pre-test probability that indirect osseous signs sharply raise. When vertebral body scalloping, an enlarged foramen transversarium, or anomalous (non-C6) entry is seen - or when complex anterior decompression or craniovertebral instrumentation is planned - preoperative CTA/MRA and a deliberate modification of the operative corridor are warranted.