Teng Lu1, Chao Liu2, Jun Dong1, Meng Lu1, Haopeng Li1, Xijing He3. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, Shaanxi Province, China. 2. Department of Neurology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, Shaanxi Province, China. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, Shaanxi Province, China. He_Xijing@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Due to the high screw malposition rate and the potential risk of neurovascular injury in cervical fixation surgeries, guided tools, mainly computer-assisted surgery navigation systems and rapid prototyping drill templates (RPDTs) have increasingly been developed to help surgeons improve screw placement accuracy. Although RPDTs have been used in cervical surgeries for almost 2 decades, no specific review has been performed detailing the state of this technique. Thus, in the current review, we fully discuss the status of applying RPDTs in cervical surgeries. METHODS: Studies that tested the accuracy and reliability of RPDTs in guiding cervical screw placements were included in this review. The fabrication workflow and usage of RPDTs, the accuracy and reliability of using RPDTs for screw and plate placement, the advantages and disadvantages of RPDTs and their prospects for future applications as a part of cervical fixation instrumentation are discussed. RESULTS: As the design of RPDTs becomes more rational, the accuracy and reliability of these devices have significantly improved in cervical fixation surgeries. Moreover, RPDTs decrease the intraoperative radiation exposure for surgeons and patients relative to conventional methods. However, some disadvantages also exist. The fabrication of RPDTs is time-consuming, and the time required to learn the related software is long. CONCLUSION: We believe that because of their merits, the RPDT technique is worth promoting for use in cervical surgeries. However, the time-consuming fabrication workflow and the long period required to learn the related software might limit its widespread use. In the future, the workflow should be simplified to reduce the extra workload for surgeons. Moreover, more clinical studies with high-level evidence are still needed to further test its accuracy and feasibility.
PURPOSE: Due to the high screw malposition rate and the potential risk of neurovascular injury in cervical fixation surgeries, guided tools, mainly computer-assisted surgery navigation systems and rapid prototyping drill templates (RPDTs) have increasingly been developed to help surgeons improve screw placement accuracy. Although RPDTs have been used in cervical surgeries for almost 2 decades, no specific review has been performed detailing the state of this technique. Thus, in the current review, we fully discuss the status of applying RPDTs in cervical surgeries. METHODS: Studies that tested the accuracy and reliability of RPDTs in guiding cervical screw placements were included in this review. The fabrication workflow and usage of RPDTs, the accuracy and reliability of using RPDTs for screw and plate placement, the advantages and disadvantages of RPDTs and their prospects for future applications as a part of cervical fixation instrumentation are discussed. RESULTS: As the design of RPDTs becomes more rational, the accuracy and reliability of these devices have significantly improved in cervical fixation surgeries. Moreover, RPDTs decrease the intraoperative radiation exposure for surgeons and patients relative to conventional methods. However, some disadvantages also exist. The fabrication of RPDTs is time-consuming, and the time required to learn the related software is long. CONCLUSION: We believe that because of their merits, the RPDT technique is worth promoting for use in cervical surgeries. However, the time-consuming fabrication workflow and the long period required to learn the related software might limit its widespread use. In the future, the workflow should be simplified to reduce the extra workload for surgeons. Moreover, more clinical studies with high-level evidence are still needed to further test its accuracy and feasibility.
Authors: Richard J Bransford; Anthony J Russo; Mark Freeborn; Quynh T Nguyen; Michael J Lee; Jens R Chapman; Carlo Bellabarba Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Alessandro Borghi; Federica Ruggiero; Maik Tenhagen; Silvia Schievano; Allan Ponniah; David Dunaway; Justine O'Hara; Juling Ong; Jonathan A Britto Journal: JPRAS Open Date: 2019-06-12