AIMS: Iliac screws and S2-alar-iliac screws provide adequate mechanical stability for the fixation of lumbosacral spine pathologies, which has led to a significant increase in the use of these techniques in the routine practice of spine surgeons. However, studies on the ideal technical positioning for both techniques are limited. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational, retrospective, analytical descriptive study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze, describe and compare the insertion and positioning parameters of the S2-alar-iliac and iliac screw techniques in adult patients without spinal deformities. METHODS: The present study comprises a retrospective analysis of lumbosacral computed tomography images selected continuously in 2016 from 25 patients at a university hospital. Mann-Whitney-Shapiro-Wilk tests were performed. Data reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation. RESULTS: The mean length of the iliac screw was greater than that of the S2-alar-iliac screw, and the S2-alar-iliac screw sat 20.5 mm deeper than the iliac screw. The mean of the greatest bone thickness for the iliac screw was 20.72 mm; that of the S2-alar-iliac screw was 23.24 mm. The mean distance from the iliac screw entry point to the skin was 32.46 mm, and the mean distance from the S2-alar-iliac screw entry point to the skin was 52.87 mm. CONCLUSION: The trajectory of the S2-alar-iliac screws studied via computed tomography was greater in terms of bone thickness and deeper relative to the skin compared with the iliac screws. The S2-alar-iliac technique may have desirable clinical advantages in terms of the diameter of the screws and reduced protrusion when used in adults. These slides can be retrieved from Electronic supplementary material.
AIMS: Iliac screws and S2-alar-iliac screws provide adequate mechanical stability for the fixation of lumbosacral spine pathologies, which has led to a significant increase in the use of these techniques in the routine practice of spine surgeons. However, studies on the ideal technical positioning for both techniques are limited. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational, retrospective, analytical descriptive study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze, describe and compare the insertion and positioning parameters of the S2-alar-iliac and iliac screw techniques in adult patients without spinal deformities. METHODS: The present study comprises a retrospective analysis of lumbosacral computed tomography images selected continuously in 2016 from 25 patients at a university hospital. Mann-Whitney-Shapiro-Wilk tests were performed. Data reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation. RESULTS: The mean length of the iliac screw was greater than that of the S2-alar-iliac screw, and the S2-alar-iliac screw sat 20.5 mm deeper than the iliac screw. The mean of the greatest bone thickness for the iliac screw was 20.72 mm; that of the S2-alar-iliac screw was 23.24 mm. The mean distance from the iliac screw entry point to the skin was 32.46 mm, and the mean distance from the S2-alar-iliac screw entry point to the skin was 52.87 mm. CONCLUSION: The trajectory of the S2-alar-iliac screws studied via computed tomography was greater in terms of bone thickness and deeper relative to the skin compared with the iliac screws. The S2-alar-iliac technique may have desirable clinical advantages in terms of the diameter of the screws and reduced protrusion when used in adults. These slides can be retrieved from Electronic supplementary material.
Authors: Lauren E Matteini; Khaled M Kebaish; W Robert Volk; Patrick F Bergin; Warren D Yu; Joseph R O'Brien Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Zhao-Min Zheng; Bin-Sheng Yu; Hui Chen; Darwesh M K Aladin; Kui-Bo Zhang; Jia-Fang Zhang; Hui Liu; Keith D K Luk; William W Lu Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Joseph R O'Brien; Warren D Yu; Rishi Bhatnagar; Paul Sponseller; Khaled M Kebaish Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-05-20 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Tarik Alp Sargut; Nils Hecht; Ran Xu; Georg Bohner; Marcus Czabanka; Julia Stein; Marcus Richter; Simon Bayerl; Johannes Woitzik; Peter Vajkoczy Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 2.721