Jin Peng Du1, Yong Fan2, Qi Ning Wu2, Dai Hua Wang1, Jing Zhang1, Ding Jun Hao3. 1. Medical College, Yan'an University, Yan'an City, Shanxi Province, China. 2. Department of Spine Surgery, Xi'an Jiaotong University-Affiliated Honghui Hospital, Youyidong Road, Xi'an City, China. 3. Department of Spine Surgery, Xi'an Jiaotong University-Affiliated Honghui Hospital, Youyidong Road, Xi'an City, China. Electronic address: hhyyhdj@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many retrospective studies of pedicle screw placement have revealed that intraoperative navigation systems provide higher accuracy rates and safety than do free-hand techniques. The accuracy of various image-guided navigation systems has been studied; however, differences have not been well defined due to the lack of adequate evidence-based comparative studies. OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis was conducted to focus on the variation in pedicle screw insertion among 3 navigation systems: a 3-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation system (3D FluoroNav), a 2-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation system (2D FluoroNav), and a conventional computed tomography navigation system (CT Nav). METHODS: We screened for comparative studies on different pedicle screw insertion navigation systems published through January 2017 using the Cochrane Library, Ovid, Web of Science, PubMed, and EMBASE databases. RESULTS: From 125 papers that were identified, 10 articles were finally chosen. The present comparative study included 8 retrospective clinical studies, 1 prospective clinical trial, and 1 randomized controlled cadaveric study. The prevalence rate of pedicle violation in the 3D FluoroNav group was significantly lower than the rates of the 2D FluoroNav group (relative risk [RR] 95%, confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-0.61, P < 0.01) and the CT Nav group (RR 95%, CI: 0.42-0.90, P = 0.01), and the rate of the CT Nav group was significantly lower than that of the 2D FluoroNav group (RR 95%, CI: 0.29-0.81, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Significant differences exist among CT Nav, 3D FluoroNav, and 2D FluoroNav. Our review suggests that 3D FluoroNav may be superior to the other 2 methods in reducing pedicle violation and that clinicians should consider 3D FluoroNav as a better choice.
BACKGROUND: Many retrospective studies of pedicle screw placement have revealed that intraoperative navigation systems provide higher accuracy rates and safety than do free-hand techniques. The accuracy of various image-guided navigation systems has been studied; however, differences have not been well defined due to the lack of adequate evidence-based comparative studies. OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis was conducted to focus on the variation in pedicle screw insertion among 3 navigation systems: a 3-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation system (3D FluoroNav), a 2-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation system (2D FluoroNav), and a conventional computed tomography navigation system (CT Nav). METHODS: We screened for comparative studies on different pedicle screw insertion navigation systems published through January 2017 using the Cochrane Library, Ovid, Web of Science, PubMed, and EMBASE databases. RESULTS: From 125 papers that were identified, 10 articles were finally chosen. The present comparative study included 8 retrospective clinical studies, 1 prospective clinical trial, and 1 randomized controlled cadaveric study. The prevalence rate of pedicle violation in the 3D FluoroNav group was significantly lower than the rates of the 2D FluoroNav group (relative risk [RR] 95%, confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-0.61, P < 0.01) and the CT Nav group (RR 95%, CI: 0.42-0.90, P = 0.01), and the rate of the CT Nav group was significantly lower than that of the 2D FluoroNav group (RR 95%, CI: 0.29-0.81, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Significant differences exist among CT Nav, 3D FluoroNav, and 2D FluoroNav. Our review suggests that 3D FluoroNav may be superior to the other 2 methods in reducing pedicle violation and that clinicians should consider 3D FluoroNav as a better choice.
Authors: Harsh Wadhwa; Karen Malacon; Zachary A Medress; Christopher Leung; Matthew Sklar; Corinna C Zygourakis Journal: J Neurosurg Case Lessons Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Nils Beisemann; Jula Gierse; Eric Mandelka; Frank Hassel; Paul A Grützner; Jochen Franke; Sven Y Vetter Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Francesca Manni; Adrian Elmi-Terander; Gustav Burström; Oscar Persson; Erik Edström; Ronald Holthuizen; Caifeng Shan; Svitlana Zinger; Fons van der Sommen; Peter H N de With Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Adrian Elmi-Terander; Gustav Burström; Rami Nachabe; Halldor Skulason; Kyrre Pedersen; Michael Fagerlund; Fredrik Ståhl; Anastasios Charalampidis; Michael Söderman; Staffan Holmin; Drazenko Babic; Inge Jenniskens; Erik Edström; Paul Gerdhem Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Raphael Jakubovic; Daipayan Guha; Shaurya Gupta; Michael Lu; Jamil Jivraj; Beau A Standish; Michael K Leung; Adrian Mariampillai; Kenneth Lee; Peter Siegler; Patryk Skowron; Hamza Farooq; Nhu Nguyen; Joseph Alarcon; Ryan Deorajh; Joel Ramjist; Michael Ford; Peter Howard; Nicolas Phan; Leo da Costa; Chris Heyn; Gamaliel Tan; Rajeesh George; David W Cadotte; Todd Mainprize; Albert Yee; Victor X D Yang Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 4.379