Hitoshi Kudo1,2, Kanichiro Wada3, Gentaro Kumagai3, Sunao Tanaka3, Toru Asari3, Yasuyuki Ishibashi3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5 Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki, 036-8562, Japan. hitoshikudo2003@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mutsu General Hospital, 1-2-8 Kogawa-machi, Mutsu, 035-8601, Japan. hitoshikudo2003@yahoo.co.jp. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5 Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki, 036-8562, Japan.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are several assisted methods for the accurate placement of pedicle screw (PS), including fluoroscopy, a three-dimensional (3D) printed model, a local electrical conductivity measurement device (LECMD), and intraoperative computed tomography (CT) navigation. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of PS placement and clinical results using different assisted methods. METHODS: This study included 553 pedicle screws in 31 patients. We divided patients into the fluoroscopy (F) group (n = 79), 3D printed model and fluoroscopy (3D + F) group (n = 150), LECMD, 3D printed model, and fluoroscopy (LECMD + 3D + F) group (n = 171), and the intraoperative CT navigation (N) group (n = 153). We evaluated the operative time, intraoperative bleeding, number of fusion vertebrae, correction rate of the main curve, apical vertebral translation, grade of PS perforation (Grade 0: no perforation; Grade 1: < 2 mm; Grade 2: 2‒4 mm; Grade 3: > 4 mm), and accuracy of PS placement. RESULTS: The N group had a significantly longer operative time. There were no significant differences in the clinical results excluding the operative time. The accuracy of PS placement was 93.7%, 91.3%, 93.6%, and 93.5% in the F, 3D + F, LECMD + 3D + F, and N groups, respectively. The Grade 2 perforation rate was 2.5%, 0%, 0.6%, and 0.7% in the F, 3D + F, LECMD + 3D + F, and N groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the accuracy of PS placement and clinical results excluding the operative time. The 3D printed model, LECMD, or intraoperative CT navigation would be useful to prevent Grade 2 perforation.
INTRODUCTION: There are several assisted methods for the accurate placement of pedicle screw (PS), including fluoroscopy, a three-dimensional (3D) printed model, a local electrical conductivity measurement device (LECMD), and intraoperative computed tomography (CT) navigation. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of PS placement and clinical results using different assisted methods. METHODS: This study included 553 pedicle screws in 31 patients. We divided patients into the fluoroscopy (F) group (n = 79), 3D printed model and fluoroscopy (3D + F) group (n = 150), LECMD, 3D printed model, and fluoroscopy (LECMD + 3D + F) group (n = 171), and the intraoperative CT navigation (N) group (n = 153). We evaluated the operative time, intraoperative bleeding, number of fusion vertebrae, correction rate of the main curve, apical vertebral translation, grade of PS perforation (Grade 0: no perforation; Grade 1: < 2 mm; Grade 2: 2‒4 mm; Grade 3: > 4 mm), and accuracy of PS placement. RESULTS: The N group had a significantly longer operative time. There were no significant differences in the clinical results excluding the operative time. The accuracy of PS placement was 93.7%, 91.3%, 93.6%, and 93.5% in the F, 3D + F, LECMD + 3D + F, and N groups, respectively. The Grade 2 perforation rate was 2.5%, 0%, 0.6%, and 0.7% in the F, 3D + F, LECMD + 3D + F, and N groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the accuracy of PS placement and clinical results excluding the operative time. The 3D printed model, LECMD, or intraoperative CT navigation would be useful to prevent Grade 2 perforation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accuracy; Intraoperative computed tomography navigation; Local electrical conductivity measurement device; Pedicle screw; Scoliosis; Three-dimensional printed model