Relationship of Height and Weight to Maximum Safe Pedicle Screw Diameter in the Lumbar Spine

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathon Lentz ◽  
Joseph Albano ◽  
Robert Stockton ◽  
Maximillian Ganz ◽  
Larry Lutsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Lumbar Vertebrae ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Operative Planning ◽  
Screw Position ◽  
Screw Diameter ◽  
Intimate Knowledge ◽  
Relationship Of

Abstract Background Safely performing instrumented spinal fusion requires an intimate knowledge of anatomy and variations. Pedicle screw position and size have implications on intraoperative and post-operative complications. While pre-operative planning with Computed Tomography (CT) scan measurements may be the safest way to judge trajectory and maximal screw size, it is not standard practice for many spine surgeons. We investigated how height and weight correlated with PD. We hypothesized that these routinely obtained, non-invasive measurements would provide an easily referenced data point to aid in perioperative estimation of maximum safe pedicle screw diameter (MSPSD).Methods Coronal cuts of the lumbar spine were assessed to obtain transverse outer cortical PD as measured through the isthmus at lumbar vertebrae one through five. We assessed whether height, weight, and BMI significantly correlated with PD in our diverse population. Results Height and weight were found to significantly correlate with PD. Height explained roughly 10% of the variance in PD, weight explained only 3-4%, and BMI nearly 0%. There were significant differences in this theoretical safety profiles between the “Taller Height” and “Shorter Height” groups for the majority of pedicle screw sizes at L1 through L3. Significant differences between the populations at L4 and L5 were only seen for 8.0 mm screws at the L4 level. At L5, 100% of the “Taller Height” and “Shorter Height” subjects’ pedicles could safely accommodate pedicle screws up to 8.0 mm in diameter.Conclusions We previously reported on the significant difference in PD between different races. The results of this study provide yet another variable to be considered when making radiographic assessments of pedicle diameter.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Evaluation of Cortical Bone Trajectory Fixation with Traditional Pedicle Screw in the Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (22) ◽  
pp. 10583
Author(s):  
Kuo-Chih Su ◽  
Kun-Hui Chen ◽  
Chien-Chou Pan ◽  
Cheng-Hung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Element Model ◽  
Cortical Bone Trajectory ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension

Cortical bone trajectory (CBT) is increasingly used in spinal surgery. Although there are many biomechanical studies, the biomechanical effect of CBT in combination with traditional pedicle screws is not detailed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the traditional pedicle screw and CBT screw implantation on the lumbar spine using finite element methods. Based on the combination of the traditional pedicle screw and the CBT system implanted into the lumbar spine, four finite element spinal lumbar models were established. The models were given four different load conditions (flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation), and the deformation and stress distribution on the finite element model were observed. The results show that there was no significant difference in the structural stability of the lumbar spine model between the traditional pedicle screw system and the CBT system. In addition, CBT may reduce stress on the endplate. Different movements performed by the model may have significant biomechanical effects on the spine and screw system. Clinical spinal surgeons may also consider using the CBT system in revision spinal surgery, which may contribute to smaller wounds.

scholarly journals Radiographic feasibility study of cortical bone trajectory and traditional pedicle screw dual trajectories

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 727-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey P. Mullin ◽  
Breanna Perlmutter ◽  
Eric Schmidt ◽  
Edward Benzel ◽  
Michael P. Steinmetz
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Lumbar Level ◽  
Surgery Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prior Surgery ◽  
Dual Trajectories

OBJECTIVE In 2009, Santoni and colleagues described a novel technique of posterior instrumentation; the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) was described as a caudocephalad and medial-to-lateral trajectory. Reported indications for CBT fixation include patients with osteoporosis, single-level degenerative disease, or adjacent-segment disease (ASD). In cases of revision surgery, it is technically possible and beneficial to place a traditional pedicle screw and a CBT screw at the same spinal level and side. It remains unclear as to the feasibility of placing both a traditional and a CBT screw at all levels of the lumbar spine and with varying trajectories of the preexisting traditional pedicle screws. Therefore, the authors conducted a study to radiographically assess the feasibility of using CBT and traditional pedicle screws at the same level in a large patient population. METHODS Using a 3D Spine Navigation WorkStation, the authors assessed 47 lumbar spine CT scans. These images were obtained from 2 disparate groups of patients: those who had previously undergone traditional pedicle instrumentation (prior surgery group) and those who had not (no prior surgery group). The authors virtually placed traditional pedicle and CBT screws at each lumbar level bilaterally. It was then determined if the dual trajectories were feasible, as defined by the presence or absence of a collision of the screw trajectories based on 3D imaging. RESULTS Overall, the authors evaluated 47 patients and were able to successfully plan dual trajectories in 50% of the pedicles. The no prior surgery group, compared with the prior surgery group, had a significantly greater success rate for dual trajectories. This difference was most significant in the lower lumbar levels (L3–5) where the prior instrumented group had success rates lower than 40% compared with the no prior surgery group's success rate, which was greater than 70%. There was a significant difference between each lumbar level in the lower spine. CONCLUSIONS There is a significant difference in the feasibility of planning CBT screws in patients who have undergone prior pedicle instrumentation compared with placing CBT and traditional pedicle screws simultaneously, but dual trajectory pedicle screws are a feasible option for posterior lumbar spinal instrumentation, especially as a de novo option in osteoporotic patients or in patients with ASD who underwent previous pedicle instrumentation. Ultimately, the practical clinical utility and biomechanical effects on the spine and instrumentation construct would require additional study.

Accuracy of Free-Hand Pedicle Screws in the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine: Analysis of 6816 Consecutive Screws

Neurosurgery ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 170-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott L. Parker ◽  
Matthew J. McGirt ◽  
S Harrison. Farber ◽  
Anubhav G. Amin ◽  
Anne-Marie. Rick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Intraoperative Fluoroscopy ◽  
Thoracic And Lumbar Spine ◽  
Institutional Experience ◽  
Screw Diameter

Abstract BACKGROUND: Pedicle screws are used to stabilize all 3 columns of the spine, but can be technically demanding to place. Although intraoperative fluoroscopy and stereotactic-guided techniques slightly increase placement accuracy, they are also associated with increased radiation exposure to patient and surgeon as well as increased operative time. OBJECTIVE: To describe and critically evaluate our 7-year institutional experience with placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine using a free-hand technique. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of all patients undergoing free-hand pedicle screw placement without fluoroscopy in the thoracic or lumbar spine between June 2002 and June 2009. Incidence and extent of cortical breach by misplaced pedicle screw was determined by review of postoperative computed tomography scans. We defined breach as more than 25% of the screw diameter residing outside of the pedicle or vertebral body cortex. RESULTS: A total of 964 patients received 6816 free-hand placed pedicle screws in the thoracic or lumbar spine. Indications for hardware placement were degenerative/deformity disease (51.2%), spondylolisthesis (23.7%), tumor (22.7%), trauma (11.3%), infection (7.6%), and congenital (0.9%). A total of 115 screws (1.7%) were identified as breaching the pedicle in 87 patients (9.0%). Breach occurred more frequently in the thoracic than the lumbar spine (2.5% and 0.9%, respectively; P < .0001) and was more often lateral (61.3%) than medial (32.8%) or superior (2.5%). T4 (4.1%) and T6 (4.0%) experienced the highest breach rate, whereas L5 and S1 had the lowest breach rate. Eight patients (0.8%) underwent revision surgery to correct malpositioned screws. CONCLUSION: Free-hand pedicle screw placement based on external anatomy alone can be performed with acceptable safety and accuracy and allows avoidance of radiation exposure encountered in fluoroscopic techniques. Image-guided assistance may be most valuable when placing screws between T4 and T6, where breach rates are highest.

scholarly journals Application of a Novel Attachable Magnetic Nerve Stimulating Probe in Intraoperative Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement: A Porcine Model Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (17) ◽  
pp. 7801
Author(s):  
Tae Sik Goh ◽  
Sung-Chan Shin ◽  
Hyun-Keun Kwon ◽  
Eui-Suk Sung ◽  
Se Bin Jun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Porcine Model ◽  
Lumbar Vertebrae ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Screw Malpositioning ◽  
Lumbar Pedicle

Pedicle screw instrumentation is a fundamental technique in lumbar spine surgery. However, several complications could occur when placing a pedicle screw, the most serious being damage to the neural structures. We developed an attachable magnetic nerve stimulating probe used for triggered electromyography (t-EMG) to avoid these. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of this probe for intraoperative neuromonitoring (ION) during lumbar pedicle screw placement in a porcine model. Forty pedicle screws were inserted bilaterally into the pedicles of the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae of five pigs; 20 were inserted typically into the pedicle without nerve damage (Group A), and the other 20 were inserted through the broken medial wall of the pedicle to permit contact with the neural structures (Group B). We measured the triggered threshold for pedicle screw placement through the conventional nerve probe and our newly developed magnetic probe. There was no significant difference in the triggered threshold between the two instruments (p = 0.828). Our newly developed magnetic stimulating probe can be attached to a screwdriver, thus preventing real-time screw malpositioning and making it practical and equally safe. This probe could become indispensable in revision spine surgeries with severe adhesions or endoscopic spine surgeries.

scholarly journals Extent and characteristic of relationships in canal dimension and canal body ratio between cervical and lumbar spine

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung-Hee Lee ◽  
Kyung-Chung Kang ◽  
Ki-Tack Kim ◽  
Yong-Chan Kim ◽  
Tae-Soo Chang
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Lumbar Vertebrae ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Cervical Canal ◽  
Elderly Male ◽  
Canal Diameter ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Relationship Of

AbstractA known prevalence of concurrent cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis was shown to be 5–25%, but there is a lack of evidence regarding direct relationships in canal dimension and canal-body ratio between cervical and lumbar spine. Total 247 patients (mean age: 61 years, male: 135) with cervical and lumbar computed tomography scans were retrospectively reviewed. Midsagittal vertebral body and canal diameters in reconstructed images were measured at all cervical and lumbar vertebrae, and canal-body ratios were calculated. The canal diameter and ratio were also compared according to the gender and age, and correlation analysis was performed for each value. There were significant correlations between cervical (C3–C7) and lumbar (L1–L5) canal dimension (p < 0.001). C5 canal diameter was most significantly correlated with L4 canal diameter (r = 0.435, p < 0.001). Cervical canal-body ratios (C3–C7) were also correlated with those of lumbar spine (L1–L5) (p < 0.001). The canal-body ratio of C3 was most highly correlated with L3 (r = 0.477, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, mean canal-body ratios of C3 and L3 were significantly smaller in male patients than female (p = 0.038 and p < 0.001) and patient’s age was inversely correlated with C5 canal diameter (r = − 0.223, p < 0.001) and C3 canal-body ratio (r = − 0.224, p < 0.001). Spinal canal dimension and canal-body ratio have moderate degrees of correlations between cervical and lumbar spine and the elderly male patients show the tendency of small canal diameter and canal-body ratio. This relationship of cervical and lumbar spine can be an important evidence to explain to the patients.

scholarly journals Confirmation of accuracy/inaccuracy of lumbar pedicle screw placement using postoperative computed tomography

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 518
Author(s):  
Mohamed M. Arnaout ◽  
Magdy O. ElSheikh ◽  
Mansour A. Makia
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Operative Intervention ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Pedicle ◽  
Ct Studies

Background: Transpedicular screws are extensively utilized in lumbar spine surgery. The placement of these screws is typically guided by anatomical landmarks and intraoperative fluoroscopy. Here, we utilized 2-week postoperative computed tomography (CT) studies to confirm the accuracy/inaccuracy of lumbar pedicle screw placement in 145 patients and correlated these findings with clinical outcomes. Methods: Over 6 months, we prospectively evaluated the location of 612 pedicle screws placed in 145 patients undergoing instrumented lumbar fusions addressing diverse pathology with instability. Routine anteroposterior and lateral plain radiographs were obtained 48 h after the surgery, while CT scans were obtained at 2 postoperative weeks (i.e., ideally these should have been performed intraoperatively or within 24–48 h of surgery). Results: Of the 612 screws, minor misplacement of screws (≤2 mm) was seen in 104 patients, moderate misplacement in 34 patients (2–4 mm), and severe misplacement in 7 patients (>4 mm). Notably, all the latter 7 (4.8% of the 145) patients required repeated operative intervention. Conclusion: Transpedicular screw insertion in the lumbar spine carries the risks of pedicle medial/lateral violation that is best confirmed on CT rather than X-rays/fluoroscopy alone. Here, we additional found 7 patients (4.8%) who with severe medial/lateral pedicle breach who warranting repeated operative intervention. In the future, CT studies should be performed intraoperatively or within 24–48 h of surgery to confirm the location of pedicle screws and rule in our out medial or lateral pedicle breaches.

scholarly journals Evaluation of C2 pedicle screw placement via the freehand technique by neurosurgical trainees

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin H. Pham ◽  
Joshua Bakhsheshian ◽  
Patrick C. Reid ◽  
Ian A. Buchanan ◽  
Vance L. Fredrickson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
C2 Pedicle Screw ◽  
Canal Diameter ◽  
Screw Length ◽  
Freehand Technique ◽  
Screw Diameter

OBJECTIVEFreehand placement of C2 instrumentation is technically challenging and has a learning curve due the unique anatomy of the region. This study evaluated the accuracy of C2 pedicle screws placed via the freehand technique by neurosurgical resident trainees.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed all patients treated at the LAC+USC Medical Center undergoing C2 pedicle screw placement in which the freehand technique was used over a 1-year period, from June 2016 to June 2017; all procedures were performed by neurosurgical residents. Measurements of C2 were obtained from preoperative CT scans, and breach rates were determined from coronal reconstructions on postoperative scans. Severity of breaches reflected the percentage of screw diameter beyond the cortical edge (I = < 25%; II = 26%–50%; III = 51%–75%; IV = 76%–100%).RESULTSNeurosurgical residents placed 40 C2 pedicle screws in 24 consecutively treated patients. All screws were placed by or under the guidance of Pham, who is a postgraduate year 7 (PGY-7) neurosurgical resident with attending staff privileges, with a PGY-2 to PGY-4 resident assistant. The authors found an average axial pedicle diameter of 5.8 mm, axial angle of 43.1°, sagittal angle of 23.0°, spinal canal diameter of 25.1 mm, and axial transverse foramen diameter of 5.9 mm. There were 17 screws placed by PGY-2 residents, 7 screws placed by PGY-4 residents, and 16 screws placed by the PGY-7 resident. The average screw length was 26.0 mm, with a screw diameter of 3.5 mm or 4.0 mm. There were 7 total breaches (17.5%), of which 4 were superior (10.0%) and 3 were lateral (7.5%). There were no medial breaches. The breaches were classified as grade I in 3 cases (42.9%), II in 3 cases (42.9%), III in 1 case (14.3%), and IV in no cases. There were 3 breaches that occurred via placement by a PGY-2 resident, 3 breaches by a PGY-4 resident, and 1 breach by the PGY-7 resident. There were no clinical sequelae due to these breaches.CONCLUSIONSFreehand placement of C2 pedicle screws can be done safely by neurosurgical residents in early training. When breaches occurred, they tended to be superior in location and related to screw length choice, and no breaches were found to be clinically significant. Controlled exposure to this unique anatomy is especially pertinent in the era of work-hour restrictions.

Optimization of Pedicle Screw Depth in the Lumbar Spine

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura E. Buckenmeyer ◽  
Kristophe J. Karami ◽  
Ata M. Kiapour ◽  
Vijay K. Goel ◽  
Teck M. Soo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Fixation Strength ◽  
Osteoporotic Patient ◽  
Insertion Depth ◽  
Anterior Cortex ◽  
Screw Insertion ◽  
Clinical Challenge ◽  
Series Of Experiments

Optimization of pedicle screw insertion depth for ideal fixation and fusion remains a clinical challenge. Improved screw purchase may improve fixation strength 1, which is especially critical in an osteoporotic patient population. Extended screw insertion depths, up to and through the anterior cortex, have yet to be compared to more commonly used shorter pedicle screws in a laboratory controlled series of experiments. The purpose of this study is to evaluate screw purchase in the osteoporotic lumbar spine as a function of insertion depth, which may be used to optimize pedicle screw-rod constructs.

scholarly journals Initial academic experience and learning curve with robotic spine instrumentation

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. E4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timur M. Urakov ◽  
Ken Hsuan-kan Chang ◽  
S. Shelby Burks ◽  
Michael Y. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Guidance System ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Fluoroscopy Time ◽  
Academic Experience ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Spine Instrumentation ◽  
Significant Difference

OBJECTIVESpine surgery is complex and involves various steps. Current robotic technology is mostly aimed at assisting with pedicle screw insertion. This report evaluates the feasibility of robot-assisted pedicle instrumentation in an academic environment with the involvement of residents and fellows.METHODSThe Renaissance Guidance System was used to plan and execute pedicle screw placement in open and percutaneous consecutive cases performed in the period of December 2015 to December 2016. The database was reviewed to assess the usability of the robot by neurosurgical trainees. Outcome measures included time per screw, fluoroscopy time, breached screws, and other complications. Screw placement was assessed in patients with postoperative CT studies. The speed of screw placement and fluoroscopy time were collected at the time of surgery by personnel affiliated with the robot’s manufacturer. Complication and imaging data were reviewed retrospectively.RESULTSA total of 306 pedicle screws were inserted in 30 patients with robot guidance. The average time for junior residents was 4.4 min/screw and for senior residents and fellows, 4.02 min/screw (p = 0.61). Among the residents dedicated to spine surgery, the average speed was 3.84 min/screw, while nondedicated residents took 4.5 min/screw (p = 0.41). Evaluation of breached screws revealed some of the pitfalls in using the robot.CONCLUSIONSNo significant difference regarding the speed of pedicle instrumentation was detected between the operators’ years of experience or dedication to spine surgery, although more participants are required to investigate this completely. On the other hand, there was a trend toward improved efficiency with more cases performed. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first reported academic experience with robot-assisted spine instrumentation.

scholarly journals Biomechanical comparison between cortical screw–rod construct versus pedicle screw–rod construct in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 230949901769065
Author(s):  
Chris Chan Yin Wei ◽  
Sem Sei Haw ◽  
Elrofai Suliman Bashir ◽  
Saw Lim Beng ◽  
Rukmanikanthan Shanmugam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Flexion ◽  
Cortical Screw ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective: To compare construct stiffness of cortical screw (CS)-rod transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) construct (G2) versus pedicle screw (PS)-rod TLIF construct (G1) in the standardized porcine lumbar spine. Methods: Six porcine lumbar spines (L2–L5) were separated into 12 functional spine units. Bilateral total facetectomies and interlaminar decompression were performed for all specimens. Non-destructive loading to assess stiffness in lateral bending, flexion and extension as well as axial rotation was performed using a universal material testing machine. Results: PS and CS constructs were significantly stiffer than the intact spine except in axial rotation. Using the normalized ratio to the intact spine, there is no significant difference between the stiffness of PS and CS: flexion (1.41 ± 0.27, 1.55 ± 0.32), extension (1.98 ± 0.49, 2.25 ± 0.44), right lateral flexion (1.93 ± 0.57, 1.55 ± 0.30), left lateral flexion (2.00 ± 0.73, 2.16 ± 0.20), right axial rotation (0.99 ± 0.21, 0.83 ± 0.26) and left axial rotation (0.96 ± 0.22, 0.92 ± 0.25). Conclusion: The CS-rod TLIF construct provided comparable construct stiffness to a traditional PS-rod TLIF construct in a ‘standardized’ porcine lumbar spine model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document