Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 3/2010

01-03-2010 | Review Article

Functional outcome of computer-assisted spinal pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies including 5,992 pedicle screws

Authors: Rajeev Verma, Sonal Krishan, Kurt Haendlmayer, A. Mohsen

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 3/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

A number of studies have shown increased accuracy of pedicle screw placement in spine with the help of computer-assisted navigation. The literature is lacking in regard to functional benefit derived from this technique. The aim of this systematic review was to look at the functional outcomes following computer-assisted pedicle screw placement in spine. A ‘Dialog Datastar’ search was used using optimized search strategy covering the period from 1950 to July 2009; 23 papers were finally included which met our inclusion criteria. We report on a total of 1,288 patients with 5,992 pedicle screws. The comparison of neurological complications in two groups demonstrated an odds ratio of 0.25 (95% CI 0.06, 1.14) in favour of using navigation for pedicle screw insertion (p = 0.07). Comparative trials demonstrated a significant advantage in terms of accuracy of navigation over conventional pedicle screw insertion with a relative risk of 1.12 (95% CI 1.09, 1.15) (p < 0.00001). Navigation does not show statistically significant benefit in reducing neurological complications and there was insufficient data in the literature to infer a conclusion in terms of fusion rate, pain relief and health outcome scores.
Literature
1.
2.
Castro WH, Halm H, Jerosch J, Malms J, Steinbeck J, Blasius S (1996) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in lumbar vertebrae. Spine 21:1320–1324CrossRefPubMed
3.
Laine T, Makitalo K, Schlenzka D, Tallroth K, Poussa M, Alho A (1997) Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion: a prospective CT study in 30 low back patients. Eur Spine J 6:402–405CrossRefPubMed
4.
Holly LT, Foley KT (2007) Image guidance in spine surgery. Orthop Clin North Am 38:451–461 (abstract viii)CrossRefPubMed
5.
Youkilis AS, Quint DJ, McGillicuddy JE, Papadopoulos SM (2001) Stereotactic navigation for placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. Neurosurgery 48:771–778 (discussion 778–779)CrossRefPubMed
6.
Richter M, Amiot LP, Neller S, Kluger P, Puhl W (2000) Computer-assisted surgery in posterior instrumentation of the cervical spine: an in vitro feasibility study. Eur Spine J 9:S65–S70CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Laine T, Schlenzka D, Makitalo K, Tallroth K, Nolte LP, Visarius H (1997) Improved accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with computer-assisted surgery. A prospective clinical trial of 30 patients. Spine 22:1254–1258CrossRefPubMed
9.
Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Jost B, Visarius H, Arm E, Langlotz F, Nolte LP, Ozdoba C (1997) Accuracy of computer-assisted pedicle screw placement. An in vivo computed tomography analysis. Spine 22:452–458CrossRefPubMed
10.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354:1896–1900CrossRefPubMed
11.
Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52:377–384CrossRefPubMed
12.
Bostelmann R, Benini A (2004) Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in transpedicular lumbar fusion. Experiences of the Spinal Neurosurgery Department. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax 93:96–102
13.
Amiot LP, Lang K, Putzier M, Zippel H, Labelle H (2000) Comparative results between conventional and computer-assisted pedicle screw installation in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. Spine 25:606–614CrossRefPubMed
14.
Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, Sandhu HS, Alvarez L (1999) The placement of lumbar pedicle screws using computerised stereotactic guidance. J Bone Jt Surg Br 81:825–829CrossRef
15.
Schnake KJ, Konig B, Berth U, Schroeder RJ, Kandziora F, Stockle U, Raschke M, Haas NP (2004) Accuracy of CT-based navigation of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine compared with conventional technique. Unfallchirurg 107:104–112. doi:10.​1007/​s00113-003-0720-8 CrossRefPubMed
16.
Seichi A, Takeshita K, Nakajima S, Akune T, Kawaguchi H, Nakamura K (2005) Revision cervical spine surgery using transarticular or pedicle screws under a computer-assisted image-guidance system. J Orthop Sci 10:385–390. doi:10.​1007/​s00776-005-0902-z CrossRefPubMed
17.
Rajasekaran S, Perumal Ramesh SV, Shetty AP (2007) Randomized clinical study to compare the accuracy of navigated and non-navigated thoracic pedicle screws in deformity correction surgeries. Spine 32:E56–E64
18.
Seller K, Wild A, Urselmann L, Krauspe R (2005) Prospective screw misplacement analysis after conventional and navigated pedicle screw implantation. Biomed Tech (Berl) 50:287–292CrossRef
19.
Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Minami A (2003) Improved accuracy of computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw insertion. J Neurosurg 99:257–263PubMed
20.
Merloz P, Troccaz J, Vouaillat H, Vasile C, Tonetti J, Eid A, Plaweski S (2007) Fluoroscopy-based navigation system in spine surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 221:813–820
21.
22.
Schlenzka D, Laine T, Lund T (2000) Computer-assisted spine surgery. Eur Spine J 9(Suppl 1):S57–S64CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
25.
Rampersaud YR, Pik JH, Salonen D, Farooq S (2005) Clinical accuracy of fluoroscopic computer-assisted pedicle screw fixation: a CT analysis. Spine 30:E183–E190CrossRefPubMed
26.
Richter M, Cakir B, Schmidt R (2005) Cervical pedicle screws: conventional versus computer-assisted placement of cannulated screws. Spine 30:2280–2287CrossRefPubMed
27.
Kamimura M, Ebara S, Itoh H, Tateiwa Y, Kinoshita T, Takaoka K (1999) Accurate pedicle screw insertion under the control of a computer-assisted image guiding system: laboratory test and clinical study. J Orthop Sci 4:197–206CrossRefPubMed
28.
Laine T, Lund T, Ylikoski M, Lohikoski J, Schlenzka D (2000) Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with and without computer assistance: a randomised controlled clinical study in 100 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J 9:235–240CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Takahata M, Sudo H, Ohshima S, Minami A (2007) Accuracy analysis of pedicle screw placement in posterior scoliosis surgery: comparison between conventional fluoroscopic and computer-assisted technique. Spine 32:1543–1550. doi:10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e318068661e​ CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C (1986) Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res, pp 7–17
32.
Ludwig SC, Kramer DL, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ (1999) Transpedicle screw fixation of the cervical spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res, pp 77–88
33.
Ferguson RL, Tencer AF, Woodard P, Allen BL Jr (1988) Biomechanical comparisons of spinal fracture models and the stabilizing effects of posterior instrumentations. Spine 13:453–460CrossRefPubMed
34.
Schulze CJ, Munzinger E, Weber U (1998) Clinical relevance of accuracy of pedicle screw placement. A computed tomographic-supported analysis. Spine 23:2215–2220 (discussion 2220–2211)CrossRefPubMed
35.
Greenland S (1994) Can meta-analysis be salvaged? Am J Epidemiol 140:783–787PubMed
36.
Greenland S (1994) Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 140:290–296PubMed
37.
Altman DG, Bland JM (1995) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 311:485PubMed
38.
Arand M, Hartwig E, Hebold D, Kinz L, Gebhard F (2007) Precision analysis of naviagation assisted implanted thoracic and lumbar pedicled screws. A prospective clinical study. Unfallchirurg 104(11):1076–1081CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Functional outcome of computer-assisted spinal pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies including 5,992 pedicle screws
Authors
Rajeev Verma
Sonal Krishan
Kurt Haendlmayer
A. Mohsen
Publication date
01-03-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1258-4

Other articles of this Issue 3/2010

European Spine Journal 3/2010 Go to the issue

Original Article

Efficacy and safety of VEPTR instrumentation for progressive spine deformities in young children without rib fusions

Original Article

Sagittal back contour and craniofacial morphology in preadolescents

Original Article

Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy

Original Article

Choice of surgical approach for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in combination with cervical disc hernia

Original Article

Treatment and complications in flaccid neuromuscular scoliosis (Duchenne muscular dystrophy and spinal muscular atrophy) with posterior-only pedicle screw instrumentation

Original Article

Postural control in patients with lumbar disc herniation in the early postoperative period