Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-06-2016 | Original Article

CT accuracy of percutaneous versus open pedicle screw techniques: a series of 1609 screws

Authors: Todd M. Chapman, Daniel J. Blizzard, Christopher R. Brown

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 6/2016

Abstract

Introduction

Traditional open exposure for posterior instrumentation requires significant soft tissue mobilization and causes significant blood loss and increased recovery time. Mal-placed screws can injure nerve roots, the spinal cord, viscera, vasculature and the cardiopulmonary system. Placement of pedicle screws using a minimally invasive technique can decrease bleeding risk, damage to soft tissues, and post-operative pain. The purpose of this study is to compare the radiographic accuracy of open free-hand versus percutaneous technique for pedicle screw placement.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing thoracolumbar surgery from September 2006 to October 2011 with post-operative CT imaging were included in this study. Three-dimensional screw positioning within the pedicle and the vertebral body was assessed on CT. The magnitude and location of violations were measured and recorded. Facet breaches at the cephalad and caudad ends of the construct were documented and graded.

Results

Two-hundred and twenty-three patients met the inclusion criteria for a total of 1609 pedicle screws. Seven-hundred and twenty-four screws were placed using a standard open free-hand technique and 885 were placed percutaneously. There was a significant difference in overall pedicle breach rates: 7.5 % for open and 4.7 % for percutaneous techniques. The magnitude of breach was greater for the percutaneous technique compared to the open technique: 5.4 versus 3.7 mm, respectively. The difference in vertebral body breaches was also significant: 11.3 % for open and 3.6 % for percutaneous. The rates of facet breach did not significantly differ.

Discussion and conclusion

This is the largest series comparing the accuracy of percutaneous to open pedicle screw placement. The rates of pedicle, vertebral body, and facets breaches in the percutaneous group were similar to the rates in the open technique group as well as rates reported in the literature. This demonstrates that the percutaneous technique described here is an accurate alternative to standard open free-hand technique.

France JC et al (1999) A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion. Outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(6):553–560CrossRef

Belmont PJ Jr et al (2001) In vivo accuracy of thoracic pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(21):2340–2346CrossRef

Belmont PJ Jr et al (2002) Accuracy of thoracic pedicle screws in patients with and without coronal plane spinal deformities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(14):1558–1566CrossRef

Castro WH et al (1996) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in lumbar vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21(11):1320–1324CrossRef

Choi WW, Green BA, Levi AD (2000) Computer-assisted fluoroscopic targeting system for pedicle screw insertion. Neurosurgery 47(4):872–878CrossRefPubMed

Haaker RG et al (1997) Verification of the position of pedicle screws in lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 6(2):125–128CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kim HJ et al (2011) The biomechanical effect of pedicle screws’ insertion angle and position on the superior adjacent segment in one segment lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 37(19):1637–1644

Mirza SK et al (2003) Accuracy of thoracic vertebral body screw placement using standard fluoroscopy, fluoroscopic image guidance, and computed tomographic image guidance: a cadaver study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(4):402–413

Raley DA, Mobbs RJ (2012) Retrospective computed tomography scan analysis of percutaneously inserted pedicle screws for posterior transpedicular stabilization of the thoracic and lumbar spine: accuracy and complication rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(12):1092–1100CrossRef

10.

Schizas C et al (2007) Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw insertion in percutaneous posterior transpedicular stabilization. Eur Spine J 16(5):613–617CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Chen Z et al (2008) Technical factors related to the incidence of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation after transpedicular instrumentation in the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 17(11):1476–1480CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Moshirfar A et al (2006) Computed tomography evaluation of superior-segment facet-joint violation after pedicle instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a midline surgical approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(22):2624–2629CrossRef

13.

Patel RD et al (2011) Facet violation with the placement of percutaneous pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(26):E1749–E1752CrossRef

14.

Shah RR et al (2003) Radiologic evaluation of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation following transpedicular instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(3):272–275

15.

Foley KT, Gupta SK (2002) Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg 97(1 Suppl):7–12PubMed

16.

Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(15 Suppl):S26–S35

17.

Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499–517PubMed

18.

Khoo LT et al (2002) Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):S166–1PubMed

19.

Perez-Cruet MJ et al (2002) Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):S129–S136PubMed

20.

Babu R et al (2012) Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Neurosurgery 71(5):962–970CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Team RDC (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

22.

Developer TJA epitools: Epidemiology Tools. R package version 0.5-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=epitools,2012

Title: CT accuracy of percutaneous versus open pedicle screw techniques: a series of 1609 screws
Authors: Todd M. Chapman
Daniel J. Blizzard
Christopher R. Brown
Publication date: 01-06-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4163-z

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

CT accuracy of percutaneous versus open pedicle screw techniques: a series of 1609 screws

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion and conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion and conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Letter to the Editor concerning “Surgery and survival outcomes of 30 patients with neurological deficit due to clear cell renal cell carcinoma spinal metastases” by Shuai Han et al. (Eur Spine J, 2015; DOI 10.1007/s00586-015-3912-3)

Surgical site infections following operative management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: prevalence, predictors of occurence, and influence on peri-operative outcomes

Metal artifact reduction using virtual monochromatic images for patients with pedicle screws implants on CT

Letter to the Editor concerning “The application of zero-profile anchored spacer in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion” by Wang et al. Eur Spine J. 2015 Jan; 24(1):148–54. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3628-9

Transdiscal screw versus pedicle screw fixation for high-grade L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis in patients younger than 60 years: a case–control study

Expert’s comment concerning Grand Rounds case entitled “Diagnosis and treatment of a rectal-cutaneous fistula: a rare complication of coccygectomy” by Eyal Behrbalk, Ofir Uri, Charles Maxwell-Armstrong and Nasir A. Quraishi (Eur Spine J; DOI 10.1007/s00586-014-3579-1)