Literature DB >> 25599290

Accuracy of fluoroscopy versus computer-assisted navigation for the placement of anterior cervical pedicle screws.

Andrew G Patton1, Randal P Morris, Yong-Fang Kuo, Ronald W Lindsey.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Randomized laboratory cadaver study.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of anterior transpedicular screw placement in the cervical spine using conventional fluoroscopy versus computer-assisted navigation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traditionally, global cervical instability has required anterior and posterior fixation due to the superior biomechanical stability of circumferential constructs. Anterior transpedicular screws (ATPS) have recently been advocated as a single surgical approach. Current clinical publications report using fluoroscopic guidance for screw placement. Computer-assisted navigation (CAN) systems have demonstrated enhanced accuracy of pedicle screw placement at all spine levels but have not been assessed for ATPS.
METHODS: The anterior vertebrae of 9 fresh frozen cadaver cervical spines were exposed, preserving the lateral and posterior soft tissue envelope. Nine practicing spine surgeons placed 2.0-mm titanium anterior transpecidular Kirschner wires into the C3-T1 pedicles bilaterally using fluoroscopy or CAN guidance. Specimens were imaged by computed tomography and virtual screws were overlaid on the K-wires. Targeting accuracy was compared between the 2 techniques in all planes using a 5-level grading scale.
RESULTS: The percentage of acceptable screw placements for fluoroscopy and CAN was 42.6% and 66.7%, respectively (P = 0.012). Catastrophic screw placement (grade 3 or 4) was 33.3% for fluoroscopy and 16.7% for CAN. In the multivariable model, the accuracy rate was 67% lower for fluoroscopy than for CAN after controlling for other factors (odds ratio: 0.33, 95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.79).
CONCLUSION: The accuracy of CAN-guided placement of K-wires for ATPS was superior to placement under fluoroscopic guidance, demonstrating statistically more acceptable screw placements and significantly less catastrophic virtual screws. However, malposition was still high, with potential for vertebral artery and neurological injury in a clinical setting. Further advancement in current ATPS techniques is warranted prior to widespread implementation in a patient setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25599290     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000786

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  12 in total

1.  Accuracy of 3D fluoroscopy-navigated anterior transpedicular screw insertion in the cervical spine: an experimental study.

Authors:  Jan Bredow; Carolin Meyer; Max Joseph Scheyerer; Florian Siedek; Lars Peter Müller; Peer Eysel; Gregor Stein
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Accuracy of 3D fluoro-navigated anterior transpedicular screws in the subaxial cervical spine: an experimental study on human specimens.

Authors:  Jan Bredow; C Meyer; F Siedek; W F Neiss; L Löhrer; L P Müller; P Eysel; G Stein
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Cervical screw placement using rapid prototyping drill templates for navigation: a literature review.

Authors:  Teng Lu; Chao Liu; Jun Dong; Meng Lu; Haopeng Li; Xijing He
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 2.924

4.  Lateral mass screw placement in the atlas: description of a novel surgical technique, radiographic parameters, and review of the literature.

Authors:  Bilal B Butt; Paul Gagnet; Joshua Piche; Rakesh Patel; Paul Park; Ilyas S Aleem
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-09

Review 5.  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

6.  Is a patient-specific drill template via a cortical bone trajectory safe in cervical anterior transpedicular insertion?

Authors:  Peng Peng; Yafei Xu; Xintao Zhang; Meisong Zhu; Bingran Du; Wenrui Li; Wenhua Huang; Jun Song; Jianyi Li
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 7.  Progress of the Anterior Transpedicular Screw in Lower Cervical Spine: A Review.

Authors:  Yuan-Wei Zhang; Ting Zeng; Wen-Cheng Gao; Xin Xiao; Yan Xiao; Xi Chen; Su-Li Zhang; Liang Deng
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2019-08-21

Review 8.  Intraoperative image guidance for cervical spine surgery.

Authors:  Sertac Kirnaz; Harry Gebhard; Taylor Wong; Raj Nangunoori; Franziska Anna Schmidt; Kosuke Sato; Roger Härtl
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-01

9.  Comparison Perioperative Factors During Minimally Invasive Pre-Psoas Lateral Interbody Fusion of the Lumbar Spine Using Either Navigation or Conventional Fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Yue-Hui Zhang; Ian White; Eric Potts; Jean-Pierre Mobasser; Dean Chou
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-07-28

10.  A Comparative Study of C2 Pedicle or Pars Screw Placement with Assistance from a 3-Dimensional (3D)-Printed Navigation Template versus C-Arm Based Navigation.

Authors:  Ye Tian; Jianan Zhang; Tuanjiang Liu; Shi Tang; Hao Chen; Keyuan Ding; Dingjun Hao
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2019-12-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.