STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of computed tomography-guided navigation (CTGN) of thoracic pedicle screw placement in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and safety of thoracic pedicle screw placement and frequency of intraoperative removal using CTGN versus conventional freehand technique in AIS. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Even in experienced hands, more than 10% of the thoracic pedicle screws are misplaced. CTGN may improve accuracy and safety, but there is little published data on its efficacy. METHODS: We reviewed intraoperative computed tomographic images in a consecutive series of AIS cases undergoing posterior fusion during a 1-year period. Three types of screws were identified: an optimal screw--the central axis is in the plane and axis of the pedicle with the tip completely within the vertebral body; an acceptable screw--the majority of its shank is outside the central axis of the pedicle, but not potentially unsafe; and a potentially unsafe screw--(1) the central axis of the screw traversed the canal, (2) left anterior/lateral vertebral body perforation, risking the aorta, or (3) any screw repositioned or removed after the postimplant computed tomography. RESULTS: In 42 patients, 485 screws were evaluable with a visible pedicle and screw (300 navigated and 185 non-navigated). Screws were classified as follows: optimal screws, 74% CTGN versus 42% non-navigated; acceptable screws, 23% CTGN versus 49% non-navigated; and potentially unsafe, 3% CTGN versus 9% non-navigated (P < 0.001). A potentially unsafe screw was 3.8 times less likely to be inserted with navigation (P = 0.003). The odds of a significant medial breach were 7.6 times higher without navigation (P < 0.001). A screw was 8.3 times more likely to be removed intraoperatively in the non-navigated cohort (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: CTGN resulted in more optimally placed thoracic pedicle screws, fewer potentially unsafe screws, and fewer screw removals.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of computed tomography-guided navigation (CTGN) of thoracic pedicle screw placement in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and safety of thoracic pedicle screw placement and frequency of intraoperative removal using CTGN versus conventional freehand technique in AIS. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Even in experienced hands, more than 10% of the thoracic pedicle screws are misplaced. CTGN may improve accuracy and safety, but there is little published data on its efficacy. METHODS: We reviewed intraoperative computed tomographic images in a consecutive series of AIS cases undergoing posterior fusion during a 1-year period. Three types of screws were identified: an optimal screw--the central axis is in the plane and axis of the pedicle with the tip completely within the vertebral body; an acceptable screw--the majority of its shank is outside the central axis of the pedicle, but not potentially unsafe; and a potentially unsafe screw--(1) the central axis of the screw traversed the canal, (2) left anterior/lateral vertebral body perforation, risking the aorta, or (3) any screw repositioned or removed after the postimplant computed tomography. RESULTS: In 42 patients, 485 screws were evaluable with a visible pedicle and screw (300 navigated and 185 non-navigated). Screws were classified as follows: optimal screws, 74% CTGN versus 42% non-navigated; acceptable screws, 23% CTGN versus 49% non-navigated; and potentially unsafe, 3% CTGN versus 9% non-navigated (P < 0.001). A potentially unsafe screw was 3.8 times less likely to be inserted with navigation (P = 0.003). The odds of a significant medial breach were 7.6 times higher without navigation (P < 0.001). A screw was 8.3 times more likely to be removed intraoperatively in the non-navigated cohort (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: CTGN resulted in more optimally placed thoracic pedicle screws, fewer potentially unsafe screws, and fewer screw removals.
Authors: Marinus de Kleuver; Stephen J Lewis; Niccole M Germscheid; Steven J Kamper; Ahmet Alanay; Sigurd H Berven; Kenneth M Cheung; Manabu Ito; Lawrence G Lenke; David W Polly; Yong Qiu; Maurits van Tulder; Christopher Shaffrey Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Ahmed A Aoude; Maryse Fortin; Rainer Figueiredo; Peter Jarzem; Jean Ouellet; Michael H Weber Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: S Reaungamornrat; T De Silva; A Uneri; J Goerres; M Jacobson; M Ketcha; S Vogt; G Kleinszig; A J Khanna; J-P Wolinsky; J L Prince; J H Siewerdsen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Lorena V Floccari; A Noelle Larson; Anthony A Stans; Jeremy Fogelson; Iikka Helenius Journal: J Pediatr Orthop Date: 2017 Oct/Nov Impact factor: 2.324