Comparison of Open and Percutaneous Lumbar Pedicle Screw Revision Rate Using 3-D Image Guidance and Intraoperative CT

Orthopedics - Tập 38 Số 2 - 2015
Edward Rainier G. Santos, Jonathan N. Sembrano, Sharon C. Yson, David W. Polly

Tóm tắt

Complications arising from a malpositioned screw can be both devastating and costly. The incidence of neurologic injury secondary to a malpositioned screw is reported to be as high as 7% to 12%. The advancement of image-guided technology has allowed surgeons to place screws more accurately and confirm correct placement prior to leaving the operating room. Only a small number of studies have examined image-guided pedicle screw accuracy in terms of intraoperative revision and reoperation rates. The purpose of this study was to determine the intraoperative revision and return to surgery rates for navigated lumbar pedicle screws and to compare navigated open and percutaneous techniques. The authors reviewed 199 cases of 3-dimensional image-guided lumbar pedicle screw instrumentation from November 2006 to December 2011. Screw or K-wire removal, repositioning, or eventual abandonment of insertion were noted. Chi-square test was used to determine statistical significance in rates between the 2 groups (alpha=0.05). The authors also noted return to surgery secondary to complications from a malpositioned screw. The overall intraoperative revision rate of navigated lumbar pedicle screws was 4.6%. There were significantly more revisions in the percutaneously inserted screws (7.5%) than with the open technique (2.7%) ( P =.0004). If K-wire revisions are excluded, there was no statistically significant difference in intraoperative revision rates between the percutaneous and open groups (2.1% vs 2.7%, respectively) ( P =.0004). No patients underwent reoperation for a malpositioned screw. This technology has virtually eliminated the need for reoperation for screw malposition. It may suggest a more cost-effective way of preventing neurovascular injuries and revision surgeries. [ Orthopedics . 2015; 38(2):e129-e134.]

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ed29c1

10.2106/00004623-199911000-00003

10.1007/s005860050147

10.3171/2009.9.SPINE09261

10.1097/00007632-200003010-00012

10.1007/s00586-011-1729-2

10.1016/j.spinee.2013.03.042

10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182999380

10.1007/s00586-009-1050-5

10.1016/j.ijsp.2011.11.002

10.1007/s00586-011-2011-3

10.1227/NEU.0b013e318237a829

10.1097/01.brs.0000254048.79024.8b

10.1007/s005860000146

10.3171/SPI-07/10/393

Luther N, Iorgulescu JB, Geannette C, et al. Comparison of navigated versus non-navigated pedicle screw placement in 260 patients and 1434 screws: screw accuracy, screw size, and the complexity of surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. Epub ahead of print.

10.1097/BSD.0b013e31829047a7

10.1007/s00586-012-2509-3

10.1097/BRS.0b013e318271b1fa

10.1007/s11999-010-1603-2

10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822a2e0a

10.2174/1874325001004010228

10.1097/01.brs.0000157172.00635.3a

10.1097/00007632-200003010-00013

10.1097/BSD.0b013e31819877c8

10.1016/j.spinee.2011.02.007

10.1097/BRS.0b013e318221a800

10.1016/j.wneu.2011.05.019

10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824b7767

Schizas C, Thein E, Kwiatkowski B, Kulik G. Pedicle screw insertion: robotic assistance versus conventional C-arm fluoroscopy. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012; 78(2):240–245.

10.1007/s00586-012-2476-8

10.1007/s00586-011-1892-5

10.1007/s00701-009-0583-z

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Orthopedics

Tập 38 Số 2

Thông tin tác giả