Sebouh Z Kassis1, Loay K Abukwedar2, Abdul Karim Msaddi2, Catalin N Majer2, Walid Othman2. 1. Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, Neuro Spinal Hospital, PO box 71444, Jumeirah beach road, Jumeirah 1, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. sebouh.Kassis@nshdubai.com. 2. Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, Neuro Spinal Hospital, PO box 71444, Jumeirah beach road, Jumeirah 1, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The O-arm-based navigation increases the accuracy of pedicle screw positioning and offers the possibility of performing a 3D scan before wound closure. However, repeating the 3D scan exposes the patient to additional radiation. We combined O-arm navigation with pedicle screw (PS) stimulation followed by a 3D scan to evaluate their accuracy and aimed for the creation of a protocol that maximizes the safety and minimizes radiation. METHODS: Patients had pedicle screws insertion using O-arm spinal navigation, then had PS triggered electromyography (EMG), and finally a 3D scan to evaluate the accuracy of screw position. RESULTS: 447 screws were inserted in 71 patients. In 10 patients, 11 screws needed repositioning. Comparing results of PS triggered EMG responses to the 3D scan, we found: (a) negative stimulation response with negative 3D scan findings, corresponding to 432 acceptable screw position (96.6 %) in 58 patients (81.7 %). In these cases, the redo 3D scan could be avoided. (b) Positive stimulation response with positive 3D scan findings, corresponding to 7 unacceptable screw position (1.5 %) in 6 patients (8.4 %). In these cases, PS stimulation detected malpositioned screws that would be missed without a redo 3D scan. CONCLUSION: We propose a protocol of routinely performing PS stimulation after screw insertion using spinal navigation. In case of positive stimulation, a 3D scan must be performed to rule out a probable screw mal position (6 patients 8.4 %). However, in case of negative stimulation, redo 3D scan can be avoided in 81.7 % of patients.
PURPOSE: The O-arm-based navigation increases the accuracy of pedicle screw positioning and offers the possibility of performing a 3D scan before wound closure. However, repeating the 3D scan exposes the patient to additional radiation. We combined O-arm navigation with pedicle screw (PS) stimulation followed by a 3D scan to evaluate their accuracy and aimed for the creation of a protocol that maximizes the safety and minimizes radiation. METHODS:Patients had pedicle screws insertion using O-arm spinal navigation, then had PS triggered electromyography (EMG), and finally a 3D scan to evaluate the accuracy of screw position. RESULTS: 447 screws were inserted in 71 patients. In 10 patients, 11 screws needed repositioning. Comparing results of PS triggered EMG responses to the 3D scan, we found: (a) negative stimulation response with negative 3D scan findings, corresponding to 432 acceptable screw position (96.6 %) in 58 patients (81.7 %). In these cases, the redo 3D scan could be avoided. (b) Positive stimulation response with positive 3D scan findings, corresponding to 7 unacceptable screw position (1.5 %) in 6 patients (8.4 %). In these cases, PS stimulation detected malpositioned screws that would be missed without a redo 3D scan. CONCLUSION: We propose a protocol of routinely performing PS stimulation after screw insertion using spinal navigation. In case of positive stimulation, a 3D scan must be performed to rule out a probable screw mal position (6 patients 8.4 %). However, in case of negative stimulation, redo 3D scan can be avoided in 81.7 % of patients.
Authors: Kalil G Abdullah; Frank S Bishop; Daniel Lubelski; Michael P Steinmetz; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Elena Montes; Gema De Blas; Ignacio Regidor; Carlos Barrios; Jesús Burgos; Eduardo Hevia; José M Palanca; Carlos Correa Journal: Spine J Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Alexander Mason; Renee Paulsen; Jason M Babuska; Sharad Rajpal; Sigita Burneikiene; E Lee Nelson; Alan T Villavicencio Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2013-12-20
Authors: Ji Min Ling; Shree Kumar Dinesh; Boon Chuan Pang; Min Wei Chen; Heng Lip Lim; Danny T Louange; Chun Sing Yu; Chee Meng Ernest Wang Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Ioannis D Gelalis; Nikolaos K Paschos; Emilios E Pakos; Angelos N Politis; Christina M Arnaoutoglou; Athanasios C Karageorgos; Avraam Ploumis; Theodoros A Xenakis Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Julián Castro Castro; Jon Rodino Padín; Alfonso Pinzón Millán; Jesús Patricio Agulleiro Díaz; Juan Manuel Villa Fernández; Ana Pastor Zapata Journal: Neurocirugia (Astur) Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 0.553