Transoral digital reduction of complete anterior odontoid dislocation followed by fiducial-based navigated transcondylar screw fixation: illustrative case

BACKGROUND Posterior atlantoaxial dislocations (i.e., complete anterior odontoid dislocation) without C1 arch fractures are a rare hyperextension injury most often found in high-velocity trauma patients. Treatment options include either closed or open reduction and optional spinal fusion to address atlantoaxial instability due to ligamentous injury. OBSERVATIONS A 60-year-old male was struck while on his bicycle by a truck and sustained an odontoid dislocation without C1 arch fracture. Imaging findings additionally delineated a high suspicion for craniocervical instability. The patient had neurological issues due to both a head injury and ischemia secondary to an injured vertebral artery. He was stabilized and transferred to our facility for definitive neurosurgical care. LESSONS The patient underwent a successful transoral digital closed reduction and posterior occipital spinal fusion via a fiducial-based transcondylar, C1 lateral mass, C2 pedicle, and C3 lateral mass construct. This unique reduction technique has not been recorded in the literature before and avoided potential complications of overdistraction and the need for odontoidectomy. Furthermore, the use of bone fiducials for navigated screw fixation at the craniocervical junction is a novel technique and recommended particularly for placement of technically demanding transcondylar screws and C2 pedicle screws where pars anatomy is potentially unfavorable.

Comparison of insertion time, pull-out strength, and screw-media interface area of customized pedicle screw with different core and thread design against commercial pedicle screw: a pilot study on Indonesian Population

Objective This research aimed to developing customized pedicle screw based on Indonesian vertebral anatomy and compare the insertion time, pull-out strength, and screw-media interface area of different screw design. We have developed 3 different types of pedicle screws (v-thread cylinder-core, square-thread cylinder-core and square-thread conical-core). The thread diameter was calculated from pedicle width of Indonesian population (6 mm). We used commercially available pedicle screw as control group (6.2 mm). Result The insertion time were significantly difference between v-thread cylinder-core pedicle screw (22.94 s) with commercially available pedicle screw (15.86 s) (p < 0.05). The pull-out strength was significantly difference between commercially available pedicle screw (408.60 N) with square-thread conical pedicle screw (836.60 N) (p < 0.05). The square-thread conical-core group have the highest interface area (1486.21 mm2). The data comparison showed that the square-thread conical-core customized pedicle screw group has comparable insertion time and has better pull-out strength than commercially available pedicle screw.

Feasibility and Accuracy of Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Using an Augmented Reality Head Mounted Device

Background: To investigate the accuracy of augmented reality (AR) navigation using the Magic Leap head mounted device (HMD), pedicle screws were minimally invasively placed in four spine phantoms. Methods: AR navigation provided by a combination of a conventional navigation system integrated with the Magic Leap head mounted device (AR-HMD) was used. Forty-eight screws were planned and inserted into Th11-L4 of the phantoms using the AR-HMD and navigated instruments. Postprocedural CT scans were used to grade the technical (deviation from the plan) and clinical (Gertzbein grade) accuracy of the screws. The time for each screw placement was recorded. Results: The mean deviation between navigation plan and screw position was 1.9 ± 0.7 mm (1.9 [0.3–4.1] mm) at the entry point and 1.4 ± 0.8 mm (1.2 [0.1–3.9] mm) at the screw tip. The angular deviation was 3.0 ± 1.4° (2.7 [0.4–6.2]°) and the mean time for screw placement was 130 ± 55 s (108 [58–437] s). The clinical accuracy was 94% according to the Gertzbein grading scale. Conclusion: The combination of an AR-HMD with a conventional navigation system for accurate minimally invasive screw placement is feasible and can exploit the benefits of AR in the perspective of the surgeon with the reliability of a conventional navigation system.

CT-to-fluoroscopy registration versus scan-and-plan registration for robot-assisted insertion of lumbar pedicle screws

OBJECTIVE Pedicle screw insertion for stabilization after lumbar fusion surgery is commonly performed by spine surgeons. With the advent of navigation technology, the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion has increased. Robotic guidance has revolutionized the placement of pedicle screws with 2 distinct radiographic registration methods, the scan-and-plan method and CT-to-fluoroscopy method. In this study, the authors aimed to compare the accuracy and safety of these methods. METHODS A retrospective chart review was conducted at 2 centers to obtain operative data for consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted lumbar pedicle screw placement. The newest robotic platform (Mazor X Robotic System) was used in all cases. One center used the scan-and-plan registration method, and the other used CT-to-fluoroscopy for registration. Screw accuracy was determined by applying the Gertzbein-Robbins scale. Fluoroscopic exposure times were collected from radiology reports. RESULTS Overall, 268 patients underwent pedicle screw insertion, 126 patients with scan-and-plan registration and 142 with CT-to-fluoroscopy registration. In the scan-and-plan cohort, 450 screws were inserted across 266 spinal levels (mean 1.7 ± 1.1 screws/level), with 446 (99.1%) screws classified as Gertzbein-Robbins grade A (within the pedicle) and 4 (0.9%) as grade B (< 2-mm deviation). In the CT-to-fluoroscopy cohort, 574 screws were inserted across 280 lumbar spinal levels (mean 2.05 ± 1.7 screws/ level), with 563 (98.1%) grade A screws and 11 (1.9%) grade B (p = 0.17). The scan-and-plan cohort had nonsignificantly less fluoroscopic exposure per screw than the CT-to-fluoroscopy cohort (12 ± 13 seconds vs 11.1 ± 7 seconds, p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS Both scan-and-plan registration and CT-to-fluoroscopy registration methods were safe, accurate, and had similar fluoroscopy time exposure overall.

Workflow and performance of intraoperative CT, cone-beam CT, and robotic cone-beam CT for spinal navigation in 503 consecutive patients

OBJECTIVE A direct comparison of intraoperative CT (iCT), cone-beam CT (CBCT), and robotic cone-beam CT (rCBCT) has been necessary to identify the ideal imaging solution for each individual user’s need. Herein, the authors sought to analyze workflow, handling, and performance of iCT, CBCT, and rCBCT imaging for navigated pedicle screw instrumentation across the entire spine performed within the same surgical environment by the same group of surgeons. METHODS Between 2014 and 2018, 503 consecutive patients received 2673 navigated pedicle screws using iCT (n = 1219), CBCT (n = 646), or rCBCT (n = 808) imaging during the first 24 months after the acquisition of each modality. Clinical and demographic data, workflow, handling, and screw assessment and accuracy were analyzed. RESULTS Intraoperative CT showed image quality and workflow advantages for cervicothoracic cases, obese patients, and long-segment instrumentation, whereas CBCT and rCBCT offered independent handling, around-the-clock availability, and the option of performing 2D fluoroscopy. All modalities permitted reliable intraoperative screw assessment. Navigated screw revision was possible with each modality and yielded final accuracy rates > 92% in all groups (iCT 96.2% vs CBCT 92.3%, p < 0.001) without a difference in the accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement or the rate of secondary screw revision surgeries. CONCLUSIONS Continuous training and an individual setup of iCT, CBCT, and rCBCT has been shown to permit safe and precise navigated posterior instrumentation across the entire spine with reliable screw assessment and the option of immediate revision. The perceived higher image quality and larger scan area of iCT should be weighed against the around-the-clock availability of CBCT and rCBCT technology with the option of single-handed robotic image acquisition.

Does robot-assisted navigation influence pedicle screw selection and accuracy in minimally invasive spine surgery?

OBJECTIVE The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement has increased with the advent of robotic and surgical navigation technologies. However, the effect of robotic intraoperative screw size and trajectory templating remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare pedicle screw sizes and accuracy of placement using robotic navigation (RN) versus skin-based intraoperative navigation (ION) alone in minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a single-institution registry of spine procedures performed over a 4-year period. Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level primary or revision minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw placement, via either robotic assistance or surgical navigation alone, were included. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Pedicle screw type, quantity, length, diameter, and the presence of endplate breach or facet joint violation were assessed. Statistical analysis using the Student t-test and chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences in pedicle screw sizes and the accuracy of placement between both groups. RESULTS Overall, 222 patients were included, of whom 92 underwent RN and 130 underwent ION MIS-TLIF. A total of 403 and 534 pedicle screws were placed with RN and ION, respectively. The mean screw diameters were 7.25 ± 0.81 mm and 6.72 ± 0.49 mm (p < 0.001) for the RN and ION groups, respectively. The mean screw length was 48.4 ± 4.48 mm in the RN group and 45.6 ± 3.46 mm in the ION group (p < 0.001). The rates of “ideal” pedicle screws in the RN and ION groups were comparable at 88.5% and 88.4% (p = 0.969), respectively. The overall screw placement was also similar. The RN cohort had 63.7% screws rated as good and 31.4% as acceptable, while 66.1% of ION-placed screws had good placement and 28.7% had acceptable placement (p = 0.661 and p = 0.595, respectively). There was a significant reduction in high-grade breaches in the RN group (0%, n = 0) compared with the ION group (1.2%, n = 17, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that robotic assistance allows for placement of screws with greater screw diameter and length compared with surgical navigation alone, although with similarly high accuracy. These findings have implied that robotic platforms may allow for safe placement of the “optimal screw,” maximizing construct stability and, thus, the ability to obtain a successful fusion.

A novel anatomo-physiologic high-grade spondylolisthesis model to evaluate L5 nerve stretch injury after spondylolisthesis reduction

L5 nerve palsy is a well-known complication following reduction of high-grade spondylolisthesis. While several mechanisms for its occurrence have been proposed, the hypothesis of L5 nerve root strain or displacement secondary to mechanical reduction remains poorly studied. The aim of this cadaveric study is to determine changes in morphologic parameters of the L5 nerve root during simulated intraoperative reduction of high-grade spondylolisthesis. A standard posterior approach to the lumbosacral junction was performed in eight fresh-frozen cadavers with lumbosacral or lumbopelvic screw fixation. Wide decompressions of the spinal canal and L5 nerve roots with complete facetectomies were accomplished with full exposure of the L5 nerve roots. A 100% translational slip was provoked by release of the iliolumbar ligaments and cutting the disc with the attached anterior longitudinal ligament. To evaluate the path of the L5 nerves during reduction maneuvers, metal bars were inserted bilaterally at the inferomedial aspects of the L5 pedicle at a distance of 10 mm from the midpoint of the L5 pedicle screws. There was no measurable change in length of the L5 nerve roots after 50% and 100% reduction of spondylolisthesis. Mechanical strain or displacement during reduction is an unlikely cause of L5 nerve root injury. Further anatomical or physiological studies are necessary to explore alternative mechanisms of L5 nerve palsy in the setting of high-grade spondylolisthesis correction, and surgeons should favor extensive surgical decompression of the L5 nerve roots when feasible.