Jens Fichtner1, Nicole Hofmann1, Anna Rienmüller2, Niels Buchmann1, Jens Gempt1, Jan S Kirschke3, Florian Ringel4, Bernhard Meyer1, Yu-Mi Ryang5. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany; Department of Neurosurgery, University Medicine, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: yu.ryang@tum.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown higher accuracy rates of image-guided pedicle screw placement compared to freehand (FH) placement. However, data focusing on the impact of spinal navigation on the rate of revision surgeries caused by misplaced pedicle screws (PS) are scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study is aimed at identifying the rate of revision surgeries for misplaced PS comparing three-dimensional (3D) fluoroscopy navigation (3DFL) with FH PS placement. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 2232 patients (mean age, 65.3 ± 13.5 years) with 13,703 implanted PS who underwent instrumentation of the thoracolumbar spine between 2007 and 2015. Group 1 received surgery with use of 3DFL (January 2011 to December 2015), group 2 received surgery in the FH technique (April 2007 to December 2015). Because the use of 3DFL was initiated in January 2011, the examined period for 3DFL-navigated surgeries is shorter. Patients routinely received postoperative computed tomography scans and/or intraoperative control 3D scans. RESULTS: There was an overall rate of revision surgeries for malpositioned PS of 2.9%. In the 3DFL group, the rate of secondary revision surgeries was significantly lower with 1.35% (15/1112 patients) compared to 4.38% (49/1120 patients) in the FH group, respectively (odds ratio, 3.35; P < 0.01). Of all PS in the 3DFL group (30/7548 PS), 0.40% needed revision surgery (P < 0.01) compared to 1.14% in the FH group (70/6155 PS). CONCLUSIONS: We were able to show that the use of 3DFL-navigated PS placement significantly reduces the rate of revision surgeries after posterior spinal instrumentation compared to freehand PS placement.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown higher accuracy rates of image-guided pedicle screw placement compared to freehand (FH) placement. However, data focusing on the impact of spinal navigation on the rate of revision surgeries caused by misplaced pedicle screws (PS) are scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study is aimed at identifying the rate of revision surgeries for misplaced PS comparing three-dimensional (3D) fluoroscopy navigation (3DFL) with FH PS placement. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 2232 patients (mean age, 65.3 ± 13.5 years) with 13,703 implanted PS who underwent instrumentation of the thoracolumbar spine between 2007 and 2015. Group 1 received surgery with use of 3DFL (January 2011 to December 2015), group 2 received surgery in the FH technique (April 2007 to December 2015). Because the use of 3DFL was initiated in January 2011, the examined period for 3DFL-navigated surgeries is shorter. Patients routinely received postoperative computed tomography scans and/or intraoperative control 3D scans. RESULTS: There was an overall rate of revision surgeries for malpositioned PS of 2.9%. In the 3DFL group, the rate of secondary revision surgeries was significantly lower with 1.35% (15/1112 patients) compared to 4.38% (49/1120 patients) in the FH group, respectively (odds ratio, 3.35; P < 0.01). Of all PS in the 3DFL group (30/7548 PS), 0.40% needed revision surgery (P < 0.01) compared to 1.14% in the FH group (70/6155 PS). CONCLUSIONS: We were able to show that the use of 3DFL-navigated PS placement significantly reduces the rate of revision surgeries after posterior spinal instrumentation compared to freehand PS placement.
Authors: Jason I Liounakos; Vignessh Kumar; Aria Jamshidi; Zmira Silman; Christopher R Good; Samuel R Schroerlucke; Andrew Cannestra; Victor Hsu; Jae Lim; Faissal Zahrawi; Pedro M Ramirez; Thomas M Sweeney; Michael Y Wang Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2021-01-01
Authors: Doniel Drazin; Peter Grunert; Roger Hartl; David Polly; Bernhard Meyer; Ken Catchpole; Ilya Laufer; Rajiv Sethi; Tiffany Perry; David Simon; Michael Wang; Charles Fisher; Marissa Scribner; Genevieve White; R Shane Tubbs; Rod J Oskouian; Terrence Kim; J Patrick Johnson Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2018-03