Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-03-2013 | Original Article

Pedicle screw instrumentation and spinal deformities: have we gone too far?

Authors: John McCormick, Max Aebi, David Toby, Vincent Arlet

Published in: European Spine Journal | Special Issue 2/2013

Abstract

Introduction

Placement of pedicle screws within the thoracic and lumbar spine has become the “state of the art” for the treatment of spinal deformities. Newly trained surgeons are often trained only with the placement of pedicle screws within the thoracic and lumbar spine and not with hooks or other means of fixation. However, if the benefits of pedicle screw instrumentation in terms of correction ability cannot be questioned on some issues pertaining to their safety, their rationale for all situations as well as their long-term adverse consequence and or early or late complications start to arise.

Materials and methods

We therefore present four case examples that illustrate the advantages, questions and complications inherent to pedicle screw instrumentation in spinal deformities. These four cases serve as discussion supported by a review of the literature. The literature search was performed to include pedicle screws associated risks, costs and complications. Articles focusing on instrumentation of the thoracic and lumbar spine for the treatment of adult and pediatric scoliosis were reviewed.

Results

Pedicle screw instrumentation in the treatment of spinal deformity is here to stay, however a fair number of issues have come up since their widespread use that started 10 years ago: these include their misplacement with the inherent risks to the vascular or neurologic structures, the rate of misplaced pedicle screw not per number of screws inserted, but per patient operated, the number of screws really necessary to achieve a satisfactory outcome while maintaining costs, their contraindications in some very challenging deformities where the risks clearly outweigh their advantage compared to hooks. At last, the use of pedicle screw instrumentation has driven many centers in increasing the safety of such procedures using intraoperative spinal cord monitoring as well as improved imaging technologies.

Conclusion

To answer our provocative title “Pedicle screw instrumentation have we gone too far?” Definitively we can answer that for some spinal deformities instrumented with all-pedicle-screw instrumentation, we have observed cases where the surgeons have gone way too far; in other cases, where such instrumentation was used in a comprehensive and rational manner, the answer to “Have we gone too far” is no, and such use of pedicle screw has improved outcome with minimum complications.

Boucher H (1959) A method of spinal fusion. J Bone Jt Surg Br 41-B(2):248–259

Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C (1986) Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 203:7–17PubMed

Marchesi DG, Aebi M (1992) Pedicle fixation devices in the treatment of adult lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:S304–S309CrossRef

Boos N, Marchesi D, Aebi M (1991) Treatment of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a preliminary report. J Spinal Disord 4:472–479PubMedCrossRef

Eggli S, Schlapfer F, Angst M et al (1992) Biomechanical testing of three newly developed transpedicular multisegmental fixation systems. Eur Spine J 1:109–116PubMedCrossRef

Marchesi DG, Michel M, Lowery GL et al (1993) Anterior transpedicular fixation of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine. Experimental verification using a new direction finder. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:461–465

Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ et al (1995) Segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:1399–1405

Thalgott JS, Sasso RC, Cotler HB et al (1997) Adult spondylolisthesis treated with posterolateral lumbar fusion and pedicular instrumentation with AO DC plates. J Spinal Disord 10:204–208PubMedCrossRef

Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee SM et al (2001) Thoracic pedicle screw fixation in spinal deformities: are they really safe? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:2049–2057CrossRef

10.

Rose PS, Lenke LG (2007) Classification of operative adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: treatment guidelines. Orthop Clin N Am 38:521–529, vi

11.

Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J et al (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 83-A:1169–1181

12.

Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L, Link T (2001) Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Belg 67:157–163PubMed

13.

Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK et al (2004) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2040–2048CrossRef

14.

Di Silvestre M, Bakaloudis G, Lolli F et al (2008) Posterior fusion only for the thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis of more than 80°: pedicle screws versus hybrid instrumentation. Eur Spine J 17:1336–1349PubMedCrossRef

15.

Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Kim J et al (2006) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hybrid instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:291–298CrossRef

16.

Luhmann SJ, Lenke LG, Kim YJ et al (2005) Thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves between 70 degrees and 100 degrees: is anterior release necessary? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2061–2067CrossRef

17.

Arlet V, Ouellet JA, Shilt J et al (2009) Subjective evaluation of treatment outcomes of instrumentation with pedicle screws or hybrid constructs in Lenke Type 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: what happens when judges are blinded to the instrumentation? Eur Spine J 18:1927–1935PubMedCrossRef

18.

Bago J, Carrera L, March B et al (1996) Four radiological measures to estimate shoulder balance in scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop B 5:31–34PubMedCrossRef

19.

Kuklo TR, Lenke LG, Graham EJ et al (2002) Correlation of radiographic, clinical, and patient assessment of shoulder balance following fusion versus nonfusion of the proximal thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:2013–2020CrossRef

20.

Hwang SW, Samdani AF, Gressot LV et al (2012) Effect of direct vertebral body derotation on the sagittal profile in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 21:31–39PubMedCrossRef

21.

Imrie M, Yaszay B, Bastrom TP et al (2011) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: should 100 % correction be the goal? J Pediatr Orthop 31:S9–S13PubMedCrossRef

22.

Mladenov KV, Vaeterlein C, Stuecker R (2011) Selective posterior thoracic fusion by means of direct vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: effects on the sagittal alignment. Eur Spine J 20:1114–1117PubMedCrossRef

23.

Cheng JS, Lebow RL, Schmidt MH et al (2008) Rod derotation techniques for thoracolumbar spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 63:149–156PubMedCrossRef

24.

Lee SM, Suk SI, Chung ER (2004) Direct vertebral rotation: a new technique of three-dimensional deformity correction with segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:343–349CrossRef

25.

Richter A, Quante M, Macherei A et al (2010) Modified primary stable ventral derotation spondylodesis with Halm-Zielke instrumentation for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Oper Orthop Traumatol 22:164–176PubMedCrossRef

26.

Cheng I, Hay D, Iezza A et al (2010) Biomechanical analysis of derotation of the thoracic spine using pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1039–1043CrossRef

27.

Lubicky JP, Hanson JE, Riley EH et al (2011) Instrumentation constructs in pediatric patients undergoing deformity correction correlated with scoliosis research society scores. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1692–1700CrossRef

28.

Smucny M, Lubicky JP, Sanders JO et al (2011) Patient self-assessment of appearance is improved more by all pedicle screw than by hybrid constructs in surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 36:248–254PubMedCrossRef

29.

Luhmann SJ, Lenke LG, Kim YJ et al (2008) Financial analysis of circumferential fusion versus posterior-only with thoracic pedicle screw constructs for main thoracic idiopathic curves between 70 degrees and 100 degrees. J Child Orthop 2:105–112PubMedCrossRef

30.

Roach JW, Mehlman CT, Sanders JO (2011) “Does the outcome of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery justify the rising cost of the procedures?”. J Pediatr Orthop 31:S77–S80PubMedCrossRef

31.

Kamerlink JR, Quirno M, Auerbach JD et al (2010) Hospital cost analysis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction surgery in 125 consecutive cases. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:1097–1104CrossRef

32.

Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ et al (2006) Selective posterior thoracic fusions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of hooks versus pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2400–2404CrossRef

33.

Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Lenke LG et al (2007) Surgical revision rates of hooks versus hybrid versus screws versus combined anteroposterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2258–2264CrossRef

34.

Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (2004) Free hand pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine: is it safe? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:333–342 (discussion 342)CrossRef

35.

Hicks JM, Singla A, Shen FH et al (2010) Complications of pedicle screw fixation in scoliosis surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:E465–E470CrossRef

36.

Ledonio CG, Polly DW Jr, Vitale MG et al (2011) Pediatric pedicle screws: comparative effectiveness and safety: a systematic literature review from the scoliosis research society and the pediatric orthopaedic society of North America task force. J Bone Jt Surg Am 93:1227–1234CrossRef

37.

Vaccaro AR, Rizzolo SJ, Balderston RA et al (1995) Placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. Part II: an anatomical and radiographic assessment. J Bone Jt Surg Am 77:1200–1206

38.

Vaccaro AR, Rizzolo SJ, Allardyce TJ et al (1995) Placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. Part I: morphometric analysis of the thoracic vertebrae. J Bone Jt Surg Am 77:1193–1199

39.

Obrien J, Krushinski E, Zarro C et al (2006) Esophageal injury from thoracic pedicle screw placement in a polytrauma patient: a case report and literature review. J Orthop Trauma 20(6):431–434CrossRef

40.

Been HD, Kalkman CJ, Traast HS et al (1994) Neurologic injury after insertion of laminar hooks during Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:1402–1405CrossRef

41.

Sakai D, Flynn JM. Improving safety in spinal deformity surgery: advances in navigation and neurologic monitoring (this issue)

42.

Kuklo TR, Lenke LG, O’Brien MF et al (2005) Accuracy and efficacy of thoracic pedicle screws in curves more than 90 degrees. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:222–226CrossRef

43.

Kim YW, Lenke LG, Kim YJ et al (2008) Free-hand pedicle screw placement during revision spinal surgery: analysis of 552 screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1141–1148CrossRef

44.

Elliott MJ, Slakey CJ (2007) Thoracic pedicle screw placement: analysis using anatomical landmarks without image guidance. J Pediatr Orthop 27:582–586PubMedCrossRef

45.

Lenke LG, Kuklo TR, Ondra S et al (2008) Rationale behind the current state-of-the-art treatment of scoliosis (in the pedicle screw era). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1051–1054CrossRef

46.

Sanders JO, Diab M, Richards SB et al (2011) Fixation points within the main thoracic curve: does more instrumentation produce greater curve correction and improved results? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E1402–E1406CrossRef

47.

Cheung WY, Cheung WY, Lenke LG, Luk KD (2010) Prediction of scoliosis correction with thoracic segmental pedicle screw constructs using fulcrum bending radiographs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:557–561CrossRef

Title: Pedicle screw instrumentation and spinal deformities: have we gone too far?
Authors: John McCormick
Max Aebi
David Toby
Vincent Arlet
Publication date: 01-03-2013
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue Special Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2300-5

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Pedicle screw instrumentation and spinal deformities: have we gone too far?

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 2/2013

Minimally invasive approaches for the correction of adult spinal deformity

Silicate-substituted calcium phosphate as a bone graft substitute in surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

New concepts in scoliosis treatment

AIS and spondylolisthesis

Animal models for scoliosis research: state of the art, current concepts and future perspective applications

Growing rod concepts: state of the art