BACKGROUND: Transpedicular screws are currently placed with open free hand and minimally invasive techniques assisted with either fluoroscopy or navigation. Screw placement accuracy had been investigated with several methods reaching accuracy rates from 71.9% to 98.8%. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy and safety for 2-D fluoroscopy-guided screw placement assisted with electrophysiological monitoring and the inter-observer agreement for the breach classification. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 125 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and transpedicular screws placement between the levels of T-12 and S-1. Screw accuracy was evaluated using a postoperative computed tomography by three independent observers. Pedicle breach was documented when there was a violation in any direction of the pedicle. Inter-observer agreement was assessed with the Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 470 transpedicular screws were evaluated between the levels of T-12 and S-1. In 57 patients the instrumentation was bilateral and in 68 unilateral. A substantial degree of agreement was found between the observers AB (κ=0.769) and A-C (κ=0.784) and almost perfect agreement between observers B-C (κ=0.928). There were a total of 427.33 (90.92%) screws without breach, 39.33 (8.37%) minor breach pedicles and 3.33 (0.71%) major breach pedicles. The pedicle breach rate was 9.08% Trajectory pedicle breach percentages were as follows: minor medial pedicle breach 4.68%, minor lateral pedicle breach 3.47%, minor inferior pedicle breach 0.22%, and major medial breach 0.70%. No intraoperative instrumentation-related or postoperative clinical complications were encountered and no surgical revision was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a high accuracy (90.2%) for 2-D fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw using electromonitoring. Only 0.71% of the 470 screws had a major breach. Knowing the radiological spine pedicle anatomy and the correct interpretation of EMG are the key factors for this technique.
BACKGROUND: Transpedicular screws are currently placed with open free hand and minimally invasive techniques assisted with either fluoroscopy or navigation. Screw placement accuracy had been investigated with several methods reaching accuracy rates from 71.9% to 98.8%. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy and safety for 2-D fluoroscopy-guided screw placement assisted with electrophysiological monitoring and the inter-observer agreement for the breach classification. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 125 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and transpedicular screws placement between the levels of T-12 and S-1. Screw accuracy was evaluated using a postoperative computed tomography by three independent observers. Pedicle breach was documented when there was a violation in any direction of the pedicle. Inter-observer agreement was assessed with the Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 470 transpedicular screws were evaluated between the levels of T-12 and S-1. In 57 patients the instrumentation was bilateral and in 68 unilateral. A substantial degree of agreement was found between the observers AB (κ=0.769) and A-C (κ=0.784) and almost perfect agreement between observers B-C (κ=0.928). There were a total of 427.33 (90.92%) screws without breach, 39.33 (8.37%) minor breach pedicles and 3.33 (0.71%) major breach pedicles. The pedicle breach rate was 9.08% Trajectory pedicle breach percentages were as follows: minor medial pedicle breach 4.68%, minor lateral pedicle breach 3.47%, minor inferior pedicle breach 0.22%, and major medial breach 0.70%. No intraoperative instrumentation-related or postoperative clinical complications were encountered and no surgical revision was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a high accuracy (90.2%) for 2-D fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw using electromonitoring. Only 0.71% of the 470 screws had a major breach. Knowing the radiological spine pedicle anatomy and the correct interpretation of EMG are the key factors for this technique.
Authors: J R Toleikis; J P Skelly; A O Carlvin; S C Toleikis; T N Bernard; J K Burkus; M E Burr; J D Dorchak; M S Goldman; T R Walsh Journal: J Spinal Disord Date: 2000-08
Authors: Dennis P Devito; Leon Kaplan; Rupert Dietl; Michael Pfeiffer; Dale Horne; Boris Silberstein; Mitchell Hardenbrook; George Kiriyanthan; Yair Barzilay; Alexander Bruskin; Dieter Sackerer; Vitali Alexandrovsky; Carsten Stüer; Ralf Burger; Johannes Maeurer; Gordon D Donald; Donald G Gordon; Robert Schoenmayr; Alon Friedlander; Nachshon Knoller; Kirsten Schmieder; Ioannis Pechlivanis; In-Se Kim; Bernhard Meyer; Moshe Shoham Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
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: Scott L Parker; Matthew J McGirt; S Harrison Farber; Anubhav G Amin; Anne-Marie Rick; Ian Suk; Ali Bydon; Daniel M Sciubba; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Ziya L Gokaslan; Timothy F Witham Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Austin C Bourgeois; Austin R Faulkner; Yong C Bradley; Alexander S Pasciak; Patrick B Barlow; Judson R Gash; William S Reid Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2015-11
Authors: Ioannis Pechlivanis; George Kiriyanthan; Martin Engelhardt; Martin Scholz; Sebastian Lücke; Albrecht Harders; Kirsten Schmieder Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468