cervical pedicle screws
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

33
(FIVE YEARS 8)

H-INDEX

13
(FIVE YEARS 1)

Author(s):  
Stanley Kisinde ◽  
Xiaobang Hu ◽  
Shea Hesselbacher ◽  
Alexander M. Satin ◽  
Isador H. Lieberman

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
C.-E. Heyde ◽  
G. Osterhoff ◽  
Spiegl UJA ◽  
A. Völker ◽  
N. H. von der Höh ◽  
...  

Background. Pedicle screw fixation in the cervical spine provides biomechanical advantages compared to other stabilization techniques. However, pedicle screw insertion in this area is challenging due to the anatomical conditions with a high risk of breaching the small pedicles and violating the vertebral artery or neural structures. Today, several techniques to facilitate screw insertion and to make the procedure safer are used. 3-D-printed patient-matched guides based on a CT reconstruction are a helpful technique which allows to reduce operation time and to improve the safety of pedicle screw insertion at the cervical spine. Cases. 3-D-printed patient-matched drill guides based on a CT scan with a 3-D reconstruction of the spine were used in two challenging cervical spine surgical tumor cases to facilitate the implantation of the pedicle screws. The screw position was controlled postoperatively by means of the routinely performed CT scan. Results. Postoperative imaging (conventional radiographs and CT scan) revealed the correct position of the pedicle screws. The time needed for screw insertion was short, and the need for intraoperative fluoroscopy could be reduced. There was no intra- or postoperative complication related to the pedicle screw implantation. Both tumors could be removed completely. Conclusion. These preliminary results show that 3-D-printed patient-specific guides are a promising tool to support and facilitate the implantation of cervical pedicle screws. The time needed for insertion is short, and intraoperative fluoroscopy time can be reduced. This technique allows for both a meticulous preoperative planning and a correct and therefore safe intraoperative positioning of cervical spine pedicle screws.


Author(s):  
Moon-Kyu Kim ◽  
Jung-Jae Lee ◽  
Su-Hee Cho ◽  
Dai-Soon Kwak

Abstract Objective Posterior subaxial cervical screw fixation is commonly performed using the cervical pedicle screws (CPS) and lateral mass screws (LMS); however, their compatibility is low. Modified lateral mass screws (mLMS, also called paravertebral foramen screw) fixation was introduced as a salvage technique for LMS fixation and has features of both LMS and CPS techniques. In the present study, the use of mLMS as an alternative to CPS was analyzed based on clinical results. Methods Seventy-eight screws (38 CPSs and 40 mLMSs) were inserted into 12 patients. The misplacement of the screws was evaluated by computed tomography (CT). The failure of instrumentation and instability were evaluated using plain radiographs. Results The total number of CPS misplacements was 3 (10.5%); however, neurologic complications were not observed. mLMSs were used in the middle segments of the fusion in 10 patients and 2 patients had mLMS fixation for single-level fusion. An additional bridging implant was not required for connecting both CPSs and mLMSs. Instability was not observed during the observation period (4–51 months). Complete fusion was seen in 10 patients. Conclusions The alternative mLMS fixation can decrease the risk of screw misplacement compared with CPS fixation alone and achieves adequate stability leading to fusion.


Author(s):  
Mantu Jain ◽  
Rabi N. Sahu ◽  
Manisha R. Gaikwad ◽  
Sashikanta Panda ◽  
Amit Tirpude ◽  
...  

AbstractThe present study attempted to validate the “Burcev freehand method” based on anatomical observations in Indian cadavers. The study was conducted on 32 cervical pedicle screws (CPSs) that were placed in four cadavers by the authors according to the “freehand technique,” described by Burcev et al, without the aid of fluoroscopy and the trajectory verified by computed tomography scans. The screws were designated as satisfactory, permissible, or unacceptable. Descriptive variables were represented in number and percentages, continuous variables were represented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Of the 32 CPSs placed, 24 (75%) exhibited a satisfactory position, 1 (3%) exhibited a permissible position, and 7 (22%) exhibited an unacceptable position. Of the seven CPSs in the unacceptable group, four exhibited a lateral breach and three exhibited a medial breach, whereas the CPS in the permissible group exhibited a medial breach. The overall angle with contralateral lamina in the horizontal plane in terms of mean ± SD was 175.43 ± 2.82, 169.49, and 169.65 ± 6.46 degrees in the satisfactory, permissible, and unacceptable groups, respectively. In the sagittal plane, the screws exhibited an angle of 88.15 ± 3.56 degrees. No breach was observed superiorly or inferiorly. The “Burcev technique” is replicable with similar results in cadavers. Further studies must be conducted in a clinical setting to ensure its safety.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Z Mao ◽  
Justice O Agyei ◽  
Moleca M Ghannam ◽  
Asham Khan ◽  
Marc Christensen ◽  
...  

Abstract Traditionally, lateral mass screws (LMSs) have been the mainstay of posterior fixation in the subaxial spine. Although LMSs provide adequate fixation, cervical pedicle screws (CPSs) facilitate high fusion rates (90.5%) and provide for greater bone purchase, better reduction, lower rates of screw loosening or pull out, 2 times greater biomechanical advantage, superior stabilization, decreased development of pseudarthrosis, and decreased revision surgeries compared to LMSs.1-4 In addition, CPSs can be a powerful bail-out option after lateral mass construct failure. Navigation-guided CPS placement has been reported to have an accuracy of 90.3%.5 Navigation has the added advantage of mitigating screw malposition for the placement of CPS because of the smaller pedicle sizes and variability in cervical anatomy.1,3,6 The potential risks of subaxial CPS placement include the risks of vertebral artery injury, spinal cord injury, and injury to adjacent neurovasculature.2 The overall radiographic breach rate with intraoperative imaging is reported to range from 2.9% of 22.9%, with the majority of breaches occurring in the lateral direction.7,8 Despite radiographic breaches, the occurrence of nerve root injury (0.31% per screw), vertebral artery injury (0.15% per screw), and spinal cord injury (0% per screw) is rare.3,7 Here, we demonstrate navigation-assisted C1-C2 posterior fusion, with combined C1 LMSs and C2 pedicle screws with subaxial pedicle screw revision of prior failed instrumentation.3  The patient gave informed consent for surgery and video recording. Institutional review board approval was deemed unnecessary.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denglu Yan ◽  
Zaiheng Zhang ◽  
Zhi Zhang

Abstract BackgroundAlthough the cervical pedicle screws and rods were used for atlantoaxial instable, the axis fractures still a challenge for spine surgeon.ObjectiveThis study was to evaluated the clinical outcomes of axis burst fractures had C1C3 pedicles screws fixation treatment.MethodsFrom June 2014 to July 2018, 45 patients with axis fractures were enrolled in this study; 23 patients was odontoid underwent C1C2 pedicles screws fixation, and 21 patients was odontoid combine body fractures had C1C3 pedicles screws fixation. The clinical outcomes of pain relief (visual analog scale, VAS), functional disability (neck disability index, NDI) were recorded at baseline and at the final follow-up.ResultsThe pain index and NDI were all significantly improved when compared to pretreatment (P < 0.01). The VAS and ND were no significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05). All patients, suffered from severe mechanical upper cervical neck pain at pre-operative, were pain free post-operation. Pre-operative neurological examination was normal in all patients, and remained the same after surgery. All cases showed normal neurological function at the final follow-up. No vascular or neurological complication was noted. The fracture healing and the bony union of the fixed segments were revealed in all cases on CT views. Implant failure and instability were not seen on lateral flexion/extension radiographs of the cervical spine.ConclusionsCervical pedicle screws fixation was effective and safe procedures in the treatment of traumatic spondylolisthesis of axial fractures. The atlantoaxial instable of axis burst fractures can be managed with C1-C3 pedicles screws fixation.


2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090209
Author(s):  
Gerrard Gan ◽  
Arun-Kumar Kaliya-Perumal ◽  
Chun Sing Yu ◽  
Colum Patrick Nolan ◽  
Jacob Yoong-Leong Oh

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: We intend to evaluate the accuracy and safety of cervical pedicle screw (CPS) insertion under O-arm-based 3-dimensional (3D) navigation guidance. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent CPS insertion under intraoperative O-arm-based 3D navigation during the years 2009 to 2018. The radiological accuracy of CPS placement was evaluated using their intraoperative scans. Results: A total of 297 CPSs were inserted under navigation. According to Gertzbein classification, 229 screws (77.1%) were placed without any pedicle breach (grade 0). Of the screws that did breach the pedicle, 51 screws (17.2%) had a minor breach of less than 2 mm (grade 1), 13 screws (4.4%) had a breach of between 2 and 4 mm (grade 2), and 4 screws (1.3%) had a complete breach of 4 mm or more (grade 3). Six screws were revised intraoperatively. There was no incidence of neurovascular injury in this series of patients. 59 of the 68 breaches (86.8%) were found to perforate laterally, and the remaining 9 (13.2%) medially. It was noted that the C5 cervical level had the highest breach rate of 33.3%. Conclusions: O-arm-based 3D navigation can improve the accuracy and safety of CPS insertion. The overall breach rate in this study was 22.9%. Despite these breaches, there was no incidence of neurovascular injury or need for revision surgery for screw malposition.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. S116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isador H. Lieberman ◽  
Xiaobang Hu ◽  
Stanley Kisinde ◽  
Shea L. Hesselbacher

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 428-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guodong Zhang ◽  
Zhengxi Yu ◽  
Xuanhuang Chen ◽  
Xu Chen ◽  
Changfu Wu ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bijjawara Mahesh ◽  
Bidre Upendra ◽  
Shekarappa Vijay ◽  
Kumar Arun ◽  
Reddy Srinivasa

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document