The Effect of Thoracolumbar Pedicle Isthmus on Pedicle Screw Accuracy

Evaluating the safe zone for lumbar pedicle screws: are midline crossing screws indicative of pedicle breach?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Pedicle screw breach (PSB) is not uncommon following lumbar instrumentation, and in some instances, it may lead to vascular and/or neurologic complications. Previous literature suggested that screws crossing the vertebral midline on an anterior-posterior (AP) radiograph (or midsagittal on CT) are concerning for medial pedicle breach.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary aim was to map out the safe zones (SZ) of bilateral pedicle instrumentation and their relationship at each lumbar vertebral level. Our secondary aim was to evaluate the presence of SZs' intersection at each lumbar level, denoting safe midline pedicle screw crossing not otherwise associated with medial pedicle breach.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective Anatomical Study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adult patients in the from "The Cancer Imaging Archive" (TCIA) database who have not had thoraco-lumbo-sacral fusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Physiologic measures obtained through 3D analysis of CT images and virtual pedicle screws.

METHOD

CT scans of 51 patients were randomly selected from "The Cancer Imaging Archive" (TCIA) online database for analysis. The Sectra 3D Spine software was used to create 3D renderings, place virtual screws, and make measurements. At each lumbar vertebra, the right and left pedicle corridors were mapped. At each pedicle, two screw positions were templated, the "medial limit screw" (MLS) and the "lateral limit screw" (LLS). Each limit screw was the most extreme position that the screw could exist in without causing a medial or lateral breach. The safe zone was defined as the zone between MLS and LLS. Measurements were taken for each level (between L1 and L5) and side (Left, Right).

RESULTS

A total of 253 lumbar vertebrae from 51 patients (mean age 53.1, 56.9% male) were included. Two vertebrae from two patients were removed for poor image quality. Out of the 506 screw positions analyzed in our study, 97.4% had overlapping SZ and crossed the midplane without medial pedicle breach. The significant factors (p<.01) for safe midplane-crossing screws included: the screw length (L1-L5); the laterality of the screw entry point (L1-L4); and the pedicle diameter (L2 and L5).

CONCLUSIONS

A midline crossing pedicle screw on a lumbar AP radiograph is not necessarily indicative of a medial pedicle screw breach. Anatomical (ie, larger pedicle diameter) and technical (ie, longer screws, and lateral entry points) factors allow for safety zone intersections and indicate safe midline crossing by pedicle screws.

Effect of L5 spinal canal type on pedicle screw placement based on CT imaging: a retrospective clinical study

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the optimal entry point and pedicle camber angle for L5 pedicle screws of different canal types.

METHODS

CT imaging data were processed by Mimics for simulated pedicle screw placement, and PD (Pedicle diameter), PCA (Pedicle camber angle), LD (Longitudinal distance), TD (Transverse distance), and PBG (Pedicle screw breach grade) were measured. Then they were divided into the Round group and Trefoil group according to the type of spinal canal. When comparing PD, PCA, LD, TD, and PBG, the two sides of the pedicle were compared separately, so they were first divided into the round-type pedicle group and the trefoil-type pedicle group.

RESULTS

In the round-type pedicle group (n = 134) and the trefoil-type pedicle group (n = 264), there was no significant difference in PD and LD, but there was a significant difference in PCA between the two groups (t = - 4.072, P < 0.05). A statistically significant difference in the distance of the Magerl point relative to the optimal entry point (t = - 3.792, P < 0.05), and the distance of the Magerl point relative to the optimal entry point was greater in the trefoil-type pedicle group than in the round-type pedicle group.

CONCLUSION

The optimal entry point for L5 is more outward than the Magerl point, and the Trefoil spinal canal L5 is more outwardly oriented than the Round spinal canal L5, with a greater angle of abduction during pedicle screw placement.

Pedicle Screw Placement Using Intraoperative Computed Tomography and Computer-Aided Spinal Navigation Improves Screw Accuracy and Avoids Postoperative Revisions: Single-Center Analysis of 1400 Pedicle Screws

OBJECTIVE

Intraoperative computed tomography and navigation (iCT-Nav) is increasingly used to aid spinal instrumentation. We aimed to document the accuracy and revision rate of pedicle screw placement across many screws placed using iCT-Nav. We also assess patient-level factors predictive of high-grade pedicle breach.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent iCT-Nav pedicle screw placement between 2015 and 2017 at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. Screw placement accuracy was individually assessed for each screw using the 2-mm incremental grading system for pedicle breach. Predictors of high-grade (>2 mm) breach were identified using multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 1400 pedicle screws were placed in 208 patients undergoing cervicothoracic (29; 13.9%), thoracic (30; 14.4), thoracolumbar (19; 9.1%) and lumbar (130; 62.5%) surgeries. iCT-Nav afforded high-accuracy screw placement, with 1356 of 1400 screws (96.9%) being placed accurately. In total, 37 pedicle screws (2.64%) were revised intraoperatively during the index surgery across 31 patients, with no subsequent returns to the operating room because of screw malpositioning. After correcting for potential confounders, males were less likely to have a high-grade breach (odds ratio [OR] 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.59, P = 0.003) whereas lateral (OR 6.21; 95% CI 2.47-15.52, P < 0.001) or anterior (OR 5.79; 95% CI2.11-15.88, P = 0.001) breach location were predictive of a high-grade breach.

CONCLUSIONS

iCT-Nav with postinstrumentation intraoperative imaging is associated with a reduced need for costly postoperative return to the operating room for screw revision. In comparison with studies of navigation without iCT where 1.5%-1.7% of patients returned for a second surgery, we report 0 revision surgeries due to screw malpositioning.

Accuracy and technical limits of percutaneous pedicle screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine

PURPOSE

The two-dimensional fluoroscopic method of percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation has been clinically described as reliable method in the caudal thoracic and lumbosacral spine. Its accuracy has not been clearly reported in the cranial thoracic spine. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate percutaneous pedicle screw placement accuracy according to pedicle dimensions and vertebral levels.

METHODS

Six fresh-frozen human specimens were instrumented with 216 screws from T1 to S1. Pedicle isthmus widths, heights, transversal pedicles and screws were measured on computed tomography. Pedicle cortex violation ≥ 2 mm was defined as screw malposition.

RESULTS

The narrowest pedicles were at T3-T5. A large variability between transversal pedicle axes and percutaneous pedicle screw was present, depending on the spinal level. Screw malposition rates were 36.1% in the cranial thoracic spine (T1-T6), 16.7% in the caudal thoracic spine (T7-T12), and 6.9% in the lumbosacral spine (L1-S1). The risk for screw malposition was significantly higher at cranial thoracic levels compared to caudal thoracic (p = 0.006) and lumbosacral (p < 0.0001) levels. Cortex violation ≥ 2 mm was constantly present if the pedicle width was < 4.8 mm.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous pedicle screw placement appears safe in the caudal thoracic and lumbosacral spine. The two-dimensional fluoroscopic method has a limited reliability above T7 because of smaller pedicle dimensions, difficulties in visualizing radiographic pedicle landmarks and kyphosis.

Assessment of Surgical Procedural Time, Pedicle Screw Accuracy, and Clinician Radiation Exposure of a Novel Robotic Navigation System Compared With Conventional Open and Percutaneous Freehand Techniques: A Cadaveric Investigation

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate accuracy, radiation exposure, and surgical time of a new robotic-assisted navigation (RAN) platform compared with freehand techniques in conventional open and percutaneous procedures.

METHODS

Ten board-certified surgeons inserted 16 pedicle screws at T10-L5 (n = 40 per technique) in 10 human cadaveric torsos. Pedicle screws were inserted with (1) conventional MIS technique (L2-L5, patient left pedicles), (2) MIS RAN (L2-L5, patient right pedicles), (3) conventional open technique (T10-L1, patient left pedicles), and (4) open RAN (T10-L1, patient right pedicles). Output included (1) operative time, (2) number of fluoroscopic images, and (3) screw accuracy.

RESULTS

In the MIS group, compared with the freehand technique, RAN allowed for use of larger screws (diameter: 6.6 ± 0.6 mm vs 6.3 ± 0.5 mm; length: 50.3 ± 4.1 mm vs 46.9 ± 3.5 mm), decreased the number of breaches >2 mm (0 vs 7), fewer fluoroscopic images (0 ± 0 vs 108.3 ± 30.9), and surgical procedure time per screw (3.6 ± 0.4 minutes vs 7.6 ± 2.0 minutes) (all P < .05). Similarly, in the open group, RAN allowed for use of longer screws (46.1 ± 4.1 mm vs 44.0 ± 3.8 mm), decreased the number of breaches >2 mm (0 vs 13), fewer fluoroscopic images (0 ± 0 vs 24.1 ± 25.8) (all P < .05), but increased total surgical procedure time (41.4 ± 8.8 minutes vs 24.7 ± 7.0 minutes, P = .000) while maintaining screw insertion time (3.31.4 minutes vs 3.1 ± 1.0 minutes, P = .650).

CONCLUSION

RAN significantly improved accuracy and decreased radiation exposure in comparison to freehand techniques in both conventional open and percutaneous surgical procedures in cadavers. RAN significantly increased setup time compared with both conventional procedures.