Analysis of Screw/Pedicle-Width Ratio and Accuracy in Navigated Versus 3D-Controlled Fluoroscopy-Guided Pedicle Screw Placement.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Jula Gierse, Felix Zimmermann, Paul A Grützner, Jan Stallkamp, Sven Y Vetter, Eric Mandelka
{"title":"Analysis of Screw/Pedicle-Width Ratio and Accuracy in Navigated Versus 3D-Controlled Fluoroscopy-Guided Pedicle Screw Placement.","authors":"Jula Gierse, Felix Zimmermann, Paul A Grützner, Jan Stallkamp, Sven Y Vetter, Eric Mandelka","doi":"10.1177/21925682251343523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.ObjectivesDue to the close anatomic relationship between the pedicle and neurovascular structures, avoiding pedicle perforations is crucial in pedicle screw placement. Still, the use of larger screws has biomechanical advantages. Intraoperative 2D and 3D imaging, and navigation guidance can be used to combine both goals. The aim of this study was to compare the screw diameter/pedicle width ratio (SPR) and the screw placement accuracy for 3D controlled fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement vs computer navigated transpedicular screw placement in the thoracic and lumbar spine.Methods200 cases of thoracic and lumbar pedicle screw placement, of which 100 cases were performed using intraoperative computer navigation and 100 cases were performed using fluoroscopy-guidance were retrospectively registered. In the fluoroscopy group, intraoperative 3D scans were performed to confirm implant position and allow for potential intraoperative revision. In addition to accuracy and SPR, demographics, dose reports, and procedure times were analyzed.ResultsOverall, 716 fluoroscopy-guided screws were compared with 740 screws placed using navigation. Screw accuracy (83.2% vs 90.5%; <i>P</i> = .001) and SPR (0.85 ± 0.17 vs 0.88 ± 0.21; <i>P</i> < .001) were significantly higher using navigation compared to fluoroscopic guidance. Furthermore, dose area product (28,545 ± 17,693 vs 20,638 ± 15,856 mGycm<sup>2</sup>; <i>P</i> < .001), fluoroscopy time (223.6 ± 93.6 vs 92.3 ± 39.7 seconds; <i>P</i> < .001), and procedure time (154.0 ± 81.0 vs 119.7 ± 48.7 min; <i>P</i> = .004) were significantly lower using navigation.ConclusionsIntraoperative navigation does not only increase the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, but also allows for the placement of larger screws relative to the pedicle width, which may have biomechanical advantages. Notably, contrary to other studies, the use of navigation did not increase patient radiation exposure or procedure time compared to fluoroscopic guidance.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682251343523"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12089107/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251343523","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.ObjectivesDue to the close anatomic relationship between the pedicle and neurovascular structures, avoiding pedicle perforations is crucial in pedicle screw placement. Still, the use of larger screws has biomechanical advantages. Intraoperative 2D and 3D imaging, and navigation guidance can be used to combine both goals. The aim of this study was to compare the screw diameter/pedicle width ratio (SPR) and the screw placement accuracy for 3D controlled fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement vs computer navigated transpedicular screw placement in the thoracic and lumbar spine.Methods200 cases of thoracic and lumbar pedicle screw placement, of which 100 cases were performed using intraoperative computer navigation and 100 cases were performed using fluoroscopy-guidance were retrospectively registered. In the fluoroscopy group, intraoperative 3D scans were performed to confirm implant position and allow for potential intraoperative revision. In addition to accuracy and SPR, demographics, dose reports, and procedure times were analyzed.ResultsOverall, 716 fluoroscopy-guided screws were compared with 740 screws placed using navigation. Screw accuracy (83.2% vs 90.5%; P = .001) and SPR (0.85 ± 0.17 vs 0.88 ± 0.21; P < .001) were significantly higher using navigation compared to fluoroscopic guidance. Furthermore, dose area product (28,545 ± 17,693 vs 20,638 ± 15,856 mGycm2; P < .001), fluoroscopy time (223.6 ± 93.6 vs 92.3 ± 39.7 seconds; P < .001), and procedure time (154.0 ± 81.0 vs 119.7 ± 48.7 min; P = .004) were significantly lower using navigation.ConclusionsIntraoperative navigation does not only increase the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, but also allows for the placement of larger screws relative to the pedicle width, which may have biomechanical advantages. Notably, contrary to other studies, the use of navigation did not increase patient radiation exposure or procedure time compared to fluoroscopic guidance.

导航与3d控制透视引导下置入椎弓根螺钉的螺钉/椎弓根宽度比及准确性分析。
研究设计回顾性队列研究。目的由于椎弓根与神经血管结构的密切解剖关系,避免椎弓根穿孔是椎弓根螺钉置入的关键。尽管如此,使用更大的螺钉具有生物力学上的优势。术中二维和三维成像,以及导航引导可以将这两个目标结合起来。本研究的目的是比较三维控制透视引导下置入椎弓根螺钉与计算机导航下置入椎弓根螺钉的螺钉直径/椎弓根宽度比(SPR)和置入精度。方法回顾性分析200例胸腰椎椎弓根螺钉置入,其中术中计算机导航100例,透视引导100例。在透视组中,术中进行3D扫描以确认植入物位置,并允许潜在的术中翻修。除准确性和SPR外,还分析了人口统计学、剂量报告和操作时间。结果共使用透视引导螺钉716枚,导航放置螺钉740枚。螺杆精度(83.2% vs 90.5%;P = .001)和SPR(0.85±0.17 vs 0.88±0.21;P < 0.001),与透视引导相比,使用导航治疗明显更高。此外,剂量面积积(28,545±17,693 vs 20,638±15,856 mGycm2;P < 0.001),透视时间(223.6±93.6 vs 92.3±39.7秒;P < 0.001),手术时间(154.0±81.0 vs 119.7±48.7 min;P = 0.004)。结论术中导航不仅提高了椎弓根螺钉置入的准确性,而且相对于椎弓根宽度可以置入更大的螺钉,可能具有生物力学优势。值得注意的是,与其他研究相反,与透视引导相比,导航的使用并未增加患者的辐射暴露或手术时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信