Literature DB >> 23463467

The correlation between cervical range of motion and misplacement of cervical pedicle screws during cervical posterior spinal fixation surgery using a CT-based navigation system.

Ryoji Tauchi1, Shiro Imagama, Yoshihito Sakai, Zenya Ito, Kei Ando, Akio Muramoto, Hiroki Matsui, Tomohiro Matsumoto, Naoki Ishiguro.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the correlation between cervical range of motion and cervical pedicle screw (CPS) misplacement in cervical posterior spinal fusion surgery using a CT-based navigation system.
METHODS: A total of 46 consecutive patients with cervical posterior spinal fusion surgery using CPSs were evaluated retrospectively. We analyzed the cervical range of motion (ROM) and the misplacement of CPSs that were placed using either separate or single-time multilevel registration with a CT-based navigation system to determine the optimum registration procedure. The screw-inserted vertebra was indicated as Registered vertebra-Pedicle Screw inserted vertebra (Re-PS) = 0, 1, 2, or 3 depending on its distance (level) from the registered vertebra. Grades 0 (no perforation) and 1 (perforations <2 mm) were categorized as "no misplacement." Grades 2 (perforations ≧ 2 mm but < 4 mm) and 3 (perforations ≧ 4 mm) were categorized as "misplacement." We analyzed the correlations between CPS misplacement and Re-PS, and between CPS misplacement and preoperative cervical ROM.
RESULTS: Our analysis included 196 screws in patients having a mean age of 53.2 years (range 5-84 years). Level of insertion relative to registration was Re-PS = 0 in 129 screws, Re-PS = 1 in 53, Re-PS = 2 in 10 and Re-PS = 3 in 4. The misplacement rates were 12.2 % (24 screws) overall, 6.2 % in Re-PS = 0, 22.6 % in Re-PS = 1, 20 % in Re-PS = 2, and 50 % in Re-PS = 3. The rate of CPS misplacement increased significantly with a Re-PS = 1 and a Re-PS = 2 and 3 compared to a Re-PS = 0. There was a significant difference in the cervical ROM in each grade and both misplacement groups: 1.8 in Grade 0, 2.3 in Grade 1, 7.8 in Grade 2, 12.9 in Grade 3, 11 in the misplacement group and 1.9 in the no misplacement group.
CONCLUSIONS: The precision of CPS placement in CT-based navigation surgery was evaluated. The misplacement rate in single-time multilevel registration increased to 23.4 % compared to 6.2 % for separate registration. As the distance increased between the registered level and the level of CPS insertion, the preoperative cervical ROM and the rate of CPS misplacement significantly increased. Thus, the rate of misplacement of CPSs is reduced when performing separate registration. Furthermore, when there is greater preoperative cervical ROM, separate registration would likely improve the safety and accuracy of CPS insertion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23463467      PMCID: PMC3698359          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2719-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  13 in total

Review 1.  Computer-assisted spine surgery.

Authors:  D Schlenzka; T Laine; T Lund
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Improved accuracy of computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw insertion.

Authors:  Yoshihisa Kotani; Kuniyoshi Abumi; Manabu Ito; Akio Minami
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 3.  Intraoperative spinal navigation.

Authors:  Langston T Holly; Kevin T Foley
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Single versus separate registration for computer-assisted lumbar pedicle screw placement.

Authors:  Tao-Chen Lee; Lin-Cheng Yang; Po-Chou Liliang; Thung-Ming Su; Cheng-Shyuan Rau; Han-Jung Chen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  The clinical risk of vertebral artery injury from cervical pedicle screws inserted in degenerative vertebrae.

Authors:  Masashi Neo; Takeshi Sakamoto; Shunsuke Fujibayashi; Takashi Nakamura
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Application of frameless stereotaxy to pedicle screw fixation of the spine.

Authors:  I H Kalfas; D W Kormos; M A Murphy; R L McKenzie; G H Barnett; G R Bell; C P Steiner; M B Trimble; J P Weisenberger
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 5.115

7.  Pedicle screw fixation for nontraumatic lesions of the cervical spine.

Authors:  K Abumi; K Kaneda
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Cervical pedicle screws: conventional versus computer-assisted placement of cannulated screws.

Authors:  Marcus Richter; Balkan Cakir; René Schmidt
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Complications of pedicle screw fixation in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine.

Authors:  K Abumi; Y Shono; M Ito; H Taneichi; Y Kotani; K Kaneda
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Efficacy of computer-assisted pedicle screw insertion for cervical instability in RA patients.

Authors:  H Ito; M Neo; M Yoshida; S Fujibayashi; H Yoshitomi; T Nakamura
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2006-11-09       Impact factor: 2.631

View more
  9 in total

1.  Screw perforation features in 129 consecutive patients performed computer-guided cervical pedicle screw insertion.

Authors:  Masashi Uehara; Jun Takahashi; Shota Ikegami; Keijiro Mukaiyama; Shugo Kuraishi; Masayuki Shimizu; Toshimasa Futatsugi; Nobuhide Ogihara; Hiroyuki Hashidate; Hiroki Hirabayashi; Hiroyuki Kato
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Mid-term results of computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw fixation.

Authors:  Masashi Uehara; Jun Takahashi; Keijiro Mukaiyama; Shugo Kuraishi; Masayuki Shimizu; Shota Ikegami; Toshimasa Futatsugi; Nobuhide Ogihara; Hiroyuki Hashidate; Hiroki Hirabayashi; Hiroyuki Kato
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-12-17

Review 3.  Differences between Manufacturers of Computed Tomography-Based Computer-Assisted Surgery Systems Do Exist: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Anas Nooh; Joushua Lubov; Ahmed Aoude; Sultan Aldebeyan; Peter Jarzem; Jean Ouellet; Michael H Weber
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-02-01

4.  Surgical safety of cervical pedicle screw placement with computer navigation system.

Authors:  Nobuyuki Shimokawa; Toshihiro Takami
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 3.042

5.  Intraoperative Error Propagation in 3-Dimensional Spinal Navigation From Nonsegmental Registration: A Prospective Cadaveric and Clinical Study.

Authors:  Daipayan Guha; Raphael Jakubovic; Shaurya Gupta; Michael G Fehlings; Todd G Mainprize; Albert Yee; Victor X D Yang
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-10-09

6.  Comparing Accuracy of Cervical Pedicle Screw Placement between a Guidance System and Manual Manipulation: A Cadaver Study.

Authors:  Yu Cong; Nirong Bao; Jianning Zhao; Guangping Mao
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2015-09-08

7.  Use of 3D Navigation in Subaxial Cervical Spine Lateral Mass Screw Insertion.

Authors:  Abdullah Arab; Fahad Alkherayf; Adam Sachs; Eugene K Wai
Journal:  J Neurol Surg Rep       Date:  2018-02-19

8.  Accuracy and safety of C2 pedicle or pars screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Parisa Azimi; Taravat Yazdanian; Edward C Benzel; Hossein Nayeb Aghaei; Shirzad Azhari; Sohrab Sadeghi; Ali Montazeri
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  Spinal Navigation for Cervical Pedicle Screws: Surgical Pearls and Pitfalls.

Authors:  Gerrard Gan; Arun-Kumar Kaliya-Perumal; Chun Sing Yu; Colum Patrick Nolan; Jacob Yoong-Leong Oh
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-01-27
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.