Muhammed Yaser Hasan1, Gabriel Liu2, Hee-Kit Wong1, Jun-Hao Tan1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Centre, National University Hospital, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Rd, Singapore 119228, Singapore. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Centre, National University Hospital, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Rd, Singapore 119228, Singapore. Electronic address: Gabriel_LIU@nuhs.edu.sg.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Iliac screw constructs have been a major advancement in spinopelvic fixation demonstrating superior biomechanics as compared with earlier pelvic spanning constructs. However, drawbacks such as screw site prominence and wound complication have led to the development of a lower profile S2AI iliac screw. PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to study the differences in complication rates between the traditional iliac and S2AI fixations via a pooled analysis of the available head-to-head comparisons between S2AI and iliac screws. We also aimed to study the iliac screw complications trend over the years particularly with reference to recent modifications in its screw insertion techniques. STUDY DESIGN: A meta-analysis with attention to the comparison of patients who underwent iliac screws and S2AI screws was conducted. METHODS: The following databases were utilized: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database. Using the search terms: iliac, iliac bolts, S2AI, sacral 2 alar iliac, sacral two alar iliac, reviewers independently selected eligible studies, analyzed data and evaluated the risk of bias. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULT: A total of 215 articles were identified, with 6 clinical studies directly comparing outcomes of S2AI pelvic fixation versus iliac screw fixation. A total of 477 patients were included, of which 255 patients (53.5%) underwent S2AI screw and 222 (46.5%) underwent iliac screw fixation. Our pooled analysis favored S2AI screws with regards to postoperative complications of screw prominence (odds ratio [OR]=5.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.168-16.523, p<.001), screw loosening (OR=3.36, 95% CI=1.415-7.998, p=.006), implant breakage (OR=2.30, 95% CI=1.189-4.443, p=.013), and revision surgery (OR=7.84, 95% CI=3.224-19.080, p<.001). Although there was a trend toward more wound complications in conventional iliac screw techniques when compared with S2AI, it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Spinopelvic fixation is an evolving technique. The results from this study showed that S2AI screws with a lower profile have made a significant impact in reducing complications associated with conventional iliac screws. With recent entry point modification and further advancement in the conventional iliac screw technique, such as the "subcrestal iliac screw technique" which reduces the iliac screw complication rate but avoids S2AI-associated SIJ violation. Further studies may be needed to investigate whether these newer iliac screw techniques can narrow the difference in complication rates between iliac screws and S2AI screw techniques.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Iliac screw constructs have been a major advancement in spinopelvic fixation demonstrating superior biomechanics as compared with earlier pelvic spanning constructs. However, drawbacks such as screw site prominence and wound complication have led to the development of a lower profile S2AI iliac screw. PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to study the differences in complication rates between the traditional iliac and S2AI fixations via a pooled analysis of the available head-to-head comparisons between S2AI and iliac screws. We also aimed to study the iliac screw complications trend over the years particularly with reference to recent modifications in its screw insertion techniques. STUDY DESIGN: A meta-analysis with attention to the comparison of patients who underwent iliac screws and S2AI screws was conducted. METHODS: The following databases were utilized: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database. Using the search terms: iliac, iliac bolts, S2AI, sacral 2 alar iliac, sacral two alar iliac, reviewers independently selected eligible studies, analyzed data and evaluated the risk of bias. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULT: A total of 215 articles were identified, with 6 clinical studies directly comparing outcomes of S2AI pelvic fixation versus iliac screw fixation. A total of 477 patients were included, of which 255 patients (53.5%) underwent S2AI screw and 222 (46.5%) underwent iliac screw fixation. Our pooled analysis favored S2AI screws with regards to postoperative complications of screw prominence (odds ratio [OR]=5.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.168-16.523, p<.001), screw loosening (OR=3.36, 95% CI=1.415-7.998, p=.006), implant breakage (OR=2.30, 95% CI=1.189-4.443, p=.013), and revision surgery (OR=7.84, 95% CI=3.224-19.080, p<.001). Although there was a trend toward more wound complications in conventional iliac screw techniques when compared with S2AI, it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Spinopelvic fixation is an evolving technique. The results from this study showed that S2AI screws with a lower profile have made a significant impact in reducing complications associated with conventional iliac screws. With recent entry point modification and further advancement in the conventional iliac screw technique, such as the "subcrestal iliac screw technique" which reduces the iliac screw complication rate but avoids S2AI-associated SIJ violation. Further studies may be needed to investigate whether these newer iliac screw techniques can narrow the difference in complication rates between iliac screws and S2AI screw techniques.
Authors: Nathan J Lee; Asham Khan; Joseph M Lombardi; Venkat Boddapati; Paul J Park; Justin Mathew; Eric Leung; Jeffrey P Mullin; John Pollina; Ronald A Lehman Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2021-09
Authors: Jianxiong Zheng; Xiaoreng Feng; Jie Xiang; Fei Liu; Frankie K L Leung; Bin Chen Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-10-30 Impact factor: 2.359