Accuracy of fluoroscopic guidance with the coaxial view of the pedicle for percutaneous insertion of lumbar pedicle screws and risk factors for pedicle breach

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-59
Author(s):  
Koichi Murata ◽  
Shunsuke Fujibayashi ◽  
Bungo Otsuki ◽  
Takayoshi Shimizu ◽  
Kazutaka Masamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Small Difference ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Angle Difference ◽  
Percutaneous Screws ◽  
Percutaneous Insertion

OBJECTIVEIn this study the authors aimed to evaluate the rate of malposition, including pedicle breach and superior facet violation, after percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws using the coaxial fluoroscopic view of the pedicle, and to assess the risk factors for pedicle breach.METHODSIn total, 394 percutaneous screws placed in 85 patients using the coaxial fluoroscopic view of the pedicle between January 2014 and September 2017 were assessed, and 445 pedicle screws inserted in 116 patients using conventional open procedures were used for reference. Pedicle breach and superior facet violation were evaluated by postoperative 0.4-mm slice CT.RESULTSSuperior facet violation was observed in 0.5% of the percutaneous screws and 1.8% of the conventionally inserted screws. Pedicle breach occurred more frequently with percutaneous screws (28.9%) than with conventionally inserted screws (11.9%). The breaches in percutaneous screws were minor and did not reduce the interbody fusion rate. The angle difference between the percutaneous and conventionally inserted screws was comparable. Insertion at the L3 or L4 level, right-sided insertion, placement around a trefoil canal, smaller pedicle angle, and a small difference between the screw and pedicle diameters were found to be risk factors for pedicle breach by percutaneous pedicle screws.CONCLUSIONSPercutaneous pedicle screw placement using the coaxial fluoroscopic view of the pedicle carries a low risk of superior facet violation. The screws should be placed carefully considering the level and side of insertion, canal shape, and pedicle angle.

Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darryl Lau ◽  
Samuel W. Terman ◽  
Rakesh Patel ◽  
Frank La Marca ◽  
Paul Park
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

Object A reported risk factor for adjacent-segment disease is injury to the superior facet joint from pedicle screw placement. Given that the facet joint is not typically visualized during percutaneous pedicle screw insertion, there is a concern for increased facet violation (FV) in minimally invasive fusion procedures. The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the incidence of FV among patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The impact of O-arm navigation compared with traditional fluoroscopy on FV in MITLIF is also assessed, as are risk factors for FV. Methods The authors identified a consecutive population of patients who underwent MITLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw placement, as well as a matched cohort of patients who underwent open TLIF. Postoperative CT imaging was assessed to determine intraarticular FV due to pedicle screw placement. Patients were stratified into minimally invasive and open TLIF groups. Within the MITLIF group, the authors performed a subanalysis of image guidance methods used in cases of FV. Two-tailed Student t-test, ANOVA, chi-square testing, and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 282 patients were identified, with a total of 564 superior pedicle screw placements. The MITLIF group consisted of 142 patients with 284 screw insertions. The open TLIF group consisted of 140 patients with 280 screw insertions. Overall, 21 (7.4%) of 282 patients experienced FV. A total of 21 screws violated a facet joint for a screw-based FV rate of 3.7% (21 of 564 screws). There were no significant differences between the MITLIF and open TLIF groups in the percentage of patients with FV (6.3% vs 8.6%) and or the percentage of screws with FV (3.2% vs 4.3%) (p = 0.475 and p = 0.484, respectively). Further stratifying the MI group into O-arm navigation and fluoroscopic guidance subgroups, the patient-based rates of FV were 10.8% (4 of 37 patients) and 4.8% (5 of 105 patients), respectively, and the screw-based rates of FV were 5.4% (4 of 74 screws) and 2.4% (5 of 210 screws), respectively. There was no significant difference between the subgroups with respect to patient-based or screw-based FV rates (p = 0.375 and p = 0.442, respectively). The O-arm group had a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.021). BMI greater than 29.9 was independently associated with higher FV (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.65–8.53, p = 0.039). Conclusions The findings suggest that minimally invasive pedicle screw placement is not associated with higher rates of FV. Overall violation rates were similar in MITLIF and open TLIF. Higher BMI, however, was a risk factor for increased FV. The use of O-arm fluoroscopy with computer-assisted guidance did not significantly decrease the rate of FV.

scholarly journals Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Maximal Muscle Sparing—A Prospective Comparative Study with the Traditional Open Technique

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Marengo ◽  
Marco Ajello ◽  
Michele Federico Pecoraro ◽  
Giulia Pilloni ◽  
Giovanni Vercelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
One Year ◽  
Muscular Damage

Introduction. A prospective comparative study between classical posterior interbody fusion with peduncular screws and the new technique with divergent cortical screws was conducted. Material and Methods. Only patients with monosegmental degenerative disease were recruited into this study. We analyzed a cohort of 40 patients treated from January 2015 to March 2016 divided into 2 groups (20 patients went to traditional open surgery and 20 patients under mini-invasive strategy). Primary endpoints of this study are fusion rate and muscular damage; secondary endpoints analyzed were three different clinical scores (ODI, VAS, and EQ) and the morbidity rate of both techniques. Results. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between the two techniques. In addition, a significant difference in muscular damage was found according to the MRI evaluation. Clinical outcomes, based on pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index status, and Euroquality-5D score, were found to be also statistically different, even one year after surgery. This study also demonstrated a correlation between patients’ muscular damage and their clinical outcome. Conclusions. Cortical bone trajectory screws would provide similar outcomes compared to pedicle screws in posterior lumbar interbody fusion at one year after surgery, and this technique represents a reasonable alternative to pedicle screws.

Accuracy of percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placement using the oblique or “owl's-eye” view and novel guidance technology

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 509-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cary Idler ◽  
Kevin W. Rolfe ◽  
Josef E. Gorek
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Guidance System ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Screw Insertion ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Clinical Series ◽  
Lumbar Pedicle

Object This study was conducted to assess the in vivo safety and accuracy of percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placement using the owl's-eye view of the pedicle axis and a new guidance technology system that facilitates orientation of the C-arm into the appropriate fluoroscopic view and the pedicle cannulation tool in the corresponding trajectory. Methods A total of 326 percutaneous pedicle screws were placed from L-3 to S-1 in 85 consecutive adult patients. Placement was performed using simple coaxial imaging of the pedicle with the owl's-eye fluoroscopic view. NeuroVision, a new guidance system using accelerometer technology, helped align the C-arm trajectory into the owl's-eye view and the cannulation tool in the same trajectory. Postoperative fine-cut CT scans were acquired to assess screw position. Medical records were reviewed for complications. Results Five of 326 screws breached a pedicle cortex—all breaches were less than 2 mm—for an accuracy rate of 98.47%. Five screws violated an adjacent facet joint. All were at the S-1 superior facet and included in a fusion. No screw violated an adjacent mobile facet or disc space. There were no cases of new or worsening neurological symptoms or deficits for an overall clinical accuracy of 100%. Conclusions The owl's-eye technique of coaxial pedicle imaging with the C-arm fluoroscopy, facilitated by NeuroVision, is a safe and accurate means by which to place percutaneous pedicle screws for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. This is the largest series reported to use the oblique or owl's-eye projection for percutaneous pedicle screw insertion. The accuracy of percutaneous screw insertion with this technique meets or exceeds that of other reported clinical series or techniques.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive guidewireless, navigated pedicle screw placement: a technical report and case series

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. E9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon W. Smith ◽  
Jacob R. Joseph ◽  
Michael Kirsch ◽  
Mary Oakley Strasser ◽  
Jacob Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Kirschner Wire ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery ◽  
Screw Insertion ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

OBJECTIVEPercutaneous pedicle screw insertion (PPSI) is a mainstay of minimally invasive spinal surgery. Traditionally, PPSI is a fluoroscopy-guided, multistep process involving traversing the pedicle with a Jamshidi needle, placement of a Kirschner wire (K-wire), placement of a soft-tissue dilator, pedicle tract tapping, and screw insertion over the K-wire. This study evaluates the accuracy and safety of PPSI with a simplified 2-step process using a navigated awl-tap followed by navigated screw insertion without use of a K-wire or fluoroscopy.METHODSPatients undergoing PPSI utilizing the K-wire–less technique were identified. Data were extracted from the electronic medical record. Complications associated with screw placement were recorded. Postoperative radiographs as well as CT were evaluated for accuracy of pedicle screw placement.RESULTSThirty-six patients (18 male and 18 female) were included. The patients’ mean age was 60.4 years (range 23.8–78.4 years), and their mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m2 (range 20.8–40.1 kg/m2). A total of 238 pedicle screws were placed. A mean of 6.6 pedicle screws (range 4–14) were placed over a mean of 2.61 levels (range 1–7). No pedicle breaches were identified on review of postoperative radiographs. In a subgroup analysis of the 25 cases (69%) in which CT scans were performed, 173 screws were assessed; 170 (98.3%) were found to be completely within the pedicle, and 3 (1.7%) demonstrated medial breaches of less than 2 mm (Grade B). There were no complications related to PPSI in this cohort.CONCLUSIONSThis streamlined 2-step K-wire–less, navigated PPSI appears safe and accurate and avoids the need for radiation exposure to surgeon and staff.

Clinical Assessment of Percutaneous Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Using the O-Arm Multidimensional Surgical Imaging System

Neurosurgery ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 990-995 ◽  
Author(s):  
John K. Houten ◽  
Rani Nasser ◽  
Nrupen Baxi
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Imaging System ◽  
Intraoperative Imaging ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Clinical Series

Abstract BACKGROUND: Increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgery for lumbar fusion has led to dependence upon intraoperative fluoroscopy for pedicle screw placement, because limited muscle dissection does not expose the bony anatomy necessary for traditional, freehand techniques nor for registration steps in image-guidance techniques. This has raised concerns about cumulative radiation exposure for both surgeon and operating room staff. The recent introduction of the O-arm Multidimensional Surgical Imaging System allows for percutaneous placement of pedicle screws, but there is limited clinical experience with the technique and data examining its accuracy. OBJECTIVE: We present the first large clinical series of percutaneous screw placement using navigation of O-arm imaging and compare the results with the fluoroscopy-guided method. METHODS: A retrospective review of a 24-month period identified patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. The O-arm was introduced in the middle of this period and was used for all subsequent patients. Accuracy of screw placement was assessed by examination of axial computed tomography or O-arm scans. RESULTS: The fluoroscopy group included 141 screws in 42 patients, and the O-arm group included 205 screws in 52 patients. The perforation rate was 12.8% in the fluoroscopy group and 3% in the O-arm group (P < .001). Single-level O-arm procedures took a mean 200 (153–241) minutes, whereas fluoroscopy took 221 (178–302) minutes (P < .03). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous pedicle screw placement with the O-arm Multidimensional Intraoperative Imaging System is a safe and effective technique and provided improved overall accuracy and reduced operative time compared with conventional fluoroscopic techniques.

scholarly journals Application of a novel customized guide template in percutaneous pedicle screw placement: an in vitro study

10.29007/qzxg ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Su-Hua Wu ◽  
Guo Zheng ◽  
Jian-Hua Chen ◽  
Sheng-Hai Wang
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Average Distance ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Intraoperative Radiation ◽  
Spine Stabilization ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

In open surgery for spine stabilization, the pedicle screws are often placed using patient-specific guide templates since they can improve the screw placement accuracy and simplify surgery. However, the conventional fit-and-lock template requires full exposure of the bony structures and is therefore not suitable for minimally invasive procedures. In this study, we constructed a novel guide template for percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Its feasibility and the accuracy of template-assisted pedicle screw placement were assessed using an excised calf spine model. As a result, all inserted guide wires and 27 of 30 simulated screws (90%) were completely in the pedicle. The remaining screws (10%) penetrated by less than 2 mm. The average distance and angular deviations of the guide wires were 1.46±0.60 mm and 1.10±0.84°. Our study demonstrate that this novel guide template is technically feasible and enhances the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Moreover, it may simplify the surgery and minimize intraoperative radiation. Further research on its clinical applications is warranted.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement Under Regional Anaesthesia: A Comparative Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shangju Gao ◽  
Jingchao Wei ◽  
Wenyi Li ◽  
Long Zhang ◽  
Can Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Regional Anaesthesia ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

Abstract Background: Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is usually performed under general anaesthesia to keep the body still. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the robot-assisted technique under regional anaesthesia with conventional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement under general anaesthesia in minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery.Methods: Patients who underwent robot-assisted percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) or fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) from December 2017 to February 2020 in a single centre were included. Based on the method of percutaneous pedicle screw placement used, patients were divided into the robot-assisted under regional anaesthesia (group RE-RO) and fluoroscopy-guided under general anaesthesia (group GE-FLU) groups. The primary outcome measures were screw accuracy and the incidence of facet joint violation (FJV). Secondary outcome measures included X-ray exposure and intraoperative adverse events.Results: Eighteen patients were included in group RE-RO, and 23 patients were included in group GE-FLU. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws (Gertzbein and Robbins grades A and B) were 94.4% and 91.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the percentages of clinically acceptable screws (p=0.44) or overall Gertzbein and Robbins screw accuracy grades (p=0.35). Only the top screws were included in the analysis of FJVs. The percentages of FJV (Babu grades 1, 2 and 3) were 5.6% and 28.3%, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.01). Overall, the FJV grades in group RE-RO were significantly better than those in group GE-FLU (p=0.009). The mean fluoroscopy time for each screw in group RE-RO was significantly shorter than that in group GE-FLU (group RE-RO, 5.4±1.9 seconds, group GE-FLU, 6.8±2.0 seconds; P=0.03). The intraoperative adverse events included 1 case of registration failure and 1 case of guide-wire dislodgment in group RE-RO as well as 2 cases of screw misplacement in group GE-FLU. No complications related to anaesthesia were observed.Conclusion: Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement under regional anaesthesia can be performed effectively and safely. The accuracy is comparable to the conventional technique. Moreover, this technique has the advantage of fewer FJVs and a lower radiation time.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement under Regional Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Shangju Gao ◽  
Jingchao Wei ◽  
Wenyi Li ◽  
Long Zhang ◽  
Can Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Anesthesia Group

Background. Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is usually performed under general anesthesia to keep the body still. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the robot-assisted technique under regional anesthesia with that of conventional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement under general anesthesia in minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery. Methods. This study recruited patients who underwent robot-assisted percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) or fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) between December 2017 and February 2020 at a single center. Based on the method of percutaneous pedicle screw placement used, patients were divided into the robot-assisted under regional anesthesia (group RE-RO) and fluoroscopy-guided under general anesthesia (group GE-FLU) groups. The primary outcome measures were screw accuracy and the incidence of facet joint violation (FJV). Secondary outcome measures included X-ray and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores which were used to evaluate the degree of the postoperative pain at 4 hours and on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. Intraoperative adverse events were also recorded. Results. Eighteen patients were included in group RE-RO, and 23 patients were included in group GE-FLU. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws (Gertzbein and Robbins grades A and B) were 94.4% and 91.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the percentages of clinically acceptable screws ( p = 0.44 ) or overall Gertzbein and Robbins screw accuracy grades ( p = 0.35 ). Only the top screws were included in the analysis of FJVs. The percentages of FJV (Babu grades 1, 2, and 3) were 5.6% and 28.3%, respectively. This difference was statistically significant ( p = 0.01 ). Overall, the FJV grades in group RE-RO were significantly better than those in group GE-FLU ( p = 0.009 ). The mean fluoroscopy time for each screw in group RE-RO was significantly shorter than that in group GE-FLU (group RE-RO: 5.4 ± 1.9 seconds and group GE-FLU: 6.8 ± 2.0 seconds; p = 0.03 ). The postoperative pain between the RE-RO and GE-FLU groups was not statistically significant. The intraoperative adverse events included 1 case of registration failure and 1 case of guide-wire dislodgment in group RE-RO, as well as 2 cases of screw misplacement in group GE-FLU. No complications related to anesthesia were observed. Conclusion. Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement under regional anesthesia can be performed effectively and safely. The accuracy is comparable to the conventional technique. Moreover, this technique has the advantage of fewer FJVs and a lower radiation time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document