Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine

A 3D-CT Study of the Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Placement Parameters Based on Lumbar CT

OBJECTIVE

The cortical bone trajectory (CBT) technology is an effective substitute for traditional pedicle screw (PS) technology. However, there is still controversy about the CBT screw technology placement strategy. The objective of this study was to simulate cortical screw placement with the help of three-dimensional (3D) software, to discuss the differences in screws between genders and vertebral segments, and to explore a safer and more efficient strategy for cortical screw placement.

METHODS

Mimics Medical software was used to construct a 3D model of the lumbar spine, and the placement of CBT screws was simulated. The volume of each vertebral body from L1 to L5, the pedicle isthmus height (IH), the pedicle isthmus width (IW), and the sagittal vertebral distance (SAVD) were measured. The transverse distance (TD) and the longitudinal distance (LD) between the ideal starting point (SP) and the clinical SP (the intersection Q of the midline of the superior articular process and the horizontal line 1 mm below the transverse process) were measured. The cephalad angle (CA), lateral angle (LA), maximum screw diameter (MSD), maximum screw length (MSL) of each trajectory of the L1 to L5 vertebral bodies, and the percentage of the screw insertion depth (PSID) into the vertebral body were measured. Data were statistically analyzed using Student's t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey's test.

RESULTS

Vertebral anatomical parameters and CBT screw parameters differed between males and females. Female patients had lower IH, IW, SAVD, CA, LA, MSD, and MSL than males. IH was greatest in L1 (male, 17.81 mm; female, 16.12 mm) and the smallest in L5 (male, 14.11 mm; female, 13.05 mm). IW was smallest in L1 (male, 8.89 mm; female, 7.37 mm) and greatest in L5 (male, 16.59 mm; female, 15.43 mm). The MSD of males was smallest in L1 (6.05 mm) and greatest in L3 (7.06 mm); the MSD of females was smallest in L1 (5.13 mm) and greatest in L4 (6.64 mm). MSL was greatest at L3 (male, 33.63 mm; female, 32.28 mm) and smallest at L5 (male, 31.25 mm; female, 29.97 mm). CA was smallest in L1 (male, 22.80°; female, 21.92°) and greatest in L3 (male, 25.29°; female, 24.33°). LA was smallest in L1 (male 12.37°, female 11.27°) and greatest in L5 (male 13.56°, female 12.96°). Among the males, TD was smallest at L1 (-0.51 mm) and greatest at L5 (1.37 mm), while LD was greatest at L2 (3.46 mm) and smallest at L5 (2.40 mm). In females, TD was greatest at L1 (0.12 mm) and smallest at L3 (-0.51 mm), while LD was greatest at L1 (3.69 mm) and smallest at L5 (2.08 mm). In the overall sample, the incidence of SAVD and PSID gradually increased from L1 to L5.

CONCLUSION

The optimal screw placement strategy for CBT screws varies significantly according to sex and vertebral body segments, particularly noting the specificity of screw placement at L5. The optimal screw placement strategy should be selected based on the patient's sex and segment characteristics before surgery to maximize the safety and accuracy of CBT screw placement.

Effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw instrumentation in spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted (RA) technology has been shown to be a safe aid in spine surgery, this meta-analysis aims to compare surgical parameters and clinical indexes between robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory (CBT) and fluoroscopy-assisted (FA) cortical bone trajectory in spinal surgery. We searched databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The study selection process was guided by the PICOS (Patient/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design) strategy. The risk of bias in non-randomized comparative studies was assessed using the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. We performed this meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark), and the level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Six articles involving 371 patients and 1535 screws were included in this meta-analysis. RA-CBT outperformed FA-CBT in terms of various parameters, such as accuracy of pedicle screw position (both Gertzbein-Robbins scale and Ding scale), avoidance of superior facet joint violation (FJV), and reduction of neurological injury. Our meta-analysis offered a thorough evaluation of the efficacy and safety of RA-CBT in spinal surgery. The findings revealed that RA-CBT produced statistically significant results in terms of pedicle screw position accuracy and superior facet joint violation prevention. In terms of surgical parameters and clinical indexes, future research and clinical practice should investigate the efficacy of RA-CBT further. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023466280).

Let's think beyond the pedicle: A biomechanical study of a new conceptual extra pedicular screw and hook construct

Background

Transpedicular screws have proven the test of time, yet they are not devoid of complications. Many newer techniques such as 2 D and 3D fluoroscopy,O arm Navigation assisted surgery, robotic assisted surgery have come into existence to the increase precision in pedicle screw insertion. But, complications do occur in their presence. We propose an Extra pedicular screw and hook system (EPSH) system with similar biomechanical property, better safety profile and short learning curve compared to traditional pedicle screw.

Purpose

To Compare the pull out strength of Traditional Pedicle screw Vs Extra pedicular screw and hook system(EPSH).

Methods

Biomechanical testing was conducted according ASTM F543 guidelines to compare the pull-out strength of EPSH based construct and traditional pedicle screw construct. Six saw bone samples in each group considered. Screw of 5.5 mm diameter and length of 35 mm was used in both the groups. Pull out strength assessed by giving 5 mm/min axial load. The axial load Vs displacement of the screw were recorded and plotted. The maximum load required for screw failure is noted in both the group. Statistical analysis was done.

Results

The mean peak load of pedicle screw group was found to be 1670.9 ± 393.2 N with mean displacement at peak load was found to be 13.44 ± 1.7 mm and in EPSH group it was 1416.4 ± 341.4 N and 15.78 ± 3.9 mm respectively. A paired t-test showed no statistical difference(p < 0.05) between 2 groups.

Conclusion

EPSH has shown to have almost similar biomechanical property as that pedicle screw construct. With Addition of the hook, it provides an extra rotational stability as well. Being an extra-pedicular screw it has high safety profile and needs less expertise for insertion.

Accuracy and safety of robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw placement: a comparison of robot-assisted technique with fluoroscopy-assisted approach

Objective

To compare the safety and accuracy of cortical bone trajectory screw placement between the robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-assisted approaches.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted between November 2018 and June 2020, including 81 patients who underwent cortical bone trajectory (CBT) surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease. CBT was performed by the same team of experienced surgeons. The patients were randomly divided into two groups—the fluoroscopy-assisted group (FA, 44 patients) and the robot-assisted group (RA, 37 patients). Robots for orthopedic surgery were used in the robot-assisted group, whereas conventional fluoroscopy-guided screw placement was used in the fluoroscopy-assisted group. The accuracy of screw placement and rate of superior facet joint violation were assessed using postoperative computed tomography (CT). The time of single screw placement, intraoperative blood loss, and radiation exposure to the surgical team were also recorded. The χ² test and Student’s t-test were used to analyze the significance of the variables (P < 0.05).

Results

A total of 376 screws were inserted in 81 patients, including 172 screws in the robot-assisted group and 204 pedicle screws in the fluoroscopy-assisted group. Screw placement accuracy was higher in the RA group (160, 93%) than in the FA group (169, 83%) (P = 0.003). The RA group had a lower violation of the superior facet joint than the FA group. The number of screws reaching grade 0 in the RA group (58, 78%) was more than that in the FA group (56, 64%) (P = 0.041). Screw placement time was longer in the FA group (7.25 ± 0.84 min) than in the RA group (5.58 ± 1.22 min, P < 0.001). The FA group had more intraoperative bleeding (273.41 ± 118.20 ml) than the RA group (248.65 ± 97.53 ml, P = 0.313). The radiation time of the FA group (0.43 ± 0.07 min) was longer than the RA group (0.37 ± 0.10 min, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the overall learning curve tended to decrease.

Conclusions

Robot-assisted screw placement improves screw placement accuracy, shortens screw placement time, effectively improves surgical safety and efficiency, and reduces radiation exposure to the surgical team. In addition, the learning curve of robot-assisted screw placement is smooth and easy to operate.