Cortical bone trajectory screws in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease in patients with osteoporosis

Hybrid cortical bone trajectory and modified cortical bone trajectory techniques in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5 segment: A finite element analysis

Background

The academia has increasingly acknowledged the superior biomechanical performance of the hybrid fixation technique in recent years. However, there is a lack of research on the hybrid fixation technique using BCS (Bilateral Cortical Screws) and BMCS (Bilateral Modified Cortical Screws). This study aims to investigate the biomechanical performance of the BCS and BMCS hybrid fixation technique in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at the L4-L5 segment in a complete lumbar-sacral finite element model.

Methods

Three cadaver specimens are used to construct three lumbar-sacral finite element models. The biomechanical properties of various fixation technologies (BCS-BCS, BMCS-BMCS, BMCS-BCS, and BCS-BMCS) are evaluated at the L4-5 segment with a TLIF procedure conducted, including the range of motion (ROM) of the L4-5 segment, as well as the stress experienced by the cage, screws, and rods. The testing is conducted under specific loading conditions, including a compressive load of 400 N and a torque of 7.5Nm, subjecting the model to simulate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation.

Results

No significant variations are seen in the ROM at the L4-5 segment when comparing the four fixation procedures during flexion and extension. However, when it comes to lateral bending and rotation, the ROM is ordered in descending order as BCS-BCS, BCS-BMCS, BMCS-BMCS, and BMCS-BCS. The maximum stress experienced by the cage is observed to be highest within the BMCS-BCS technique during movements including flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Conversely, the BMCS-BMCS technique exhibits the highest cage stress levels during rotational movements. The stress applies to the screws and rods order the sequence of BCS-BCS, BCS-BMCS, BMCS-BCS, and BMCS-BMCS throughout all four working conditions.

Conclusion

The BMCS-BCS technique shows better biomechanical performance with less ROM and lower stress on the internal fixation system compared to other fixation techniques. BMCS-BMCS technology has similar mechanical performance to BMCS-BCS but has more contact area between screws and cortical bone, making it better for patients with severe osteoporosis.

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).

Low profile posterior lumbar-sacral interbody fusion for lumbosacral degenerative diseases: a technical note

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to report our surgical experience in patients with lumbosacral degenerative diseases who underwent posterior decompression and interbody fusion fixed with cortical bone trajectory screw and sacral alar screw, which is known as low-profile posterior lumbosacral interbody fusion (LP-PLSIF).

METHODS

Patients with lumbosacral degenerative disease who underwent LP-PLSIF and traditional PLSIF (control group) internally fixed with pedicle screws were included retrospectively. Patients' demographic data, operative parameters, and perioperative complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 18 patients were enrolled in this study, which included 9 patients (5 male and 4 female) who underwent LP-PLSIF, and 9 patients (4 male and 5 female) who underwent traditional PLSIF. There wasn't a significant difference in the average age between the two groups, 56.78 ± 10.92 years in the LP-PLSIF group and 60.22 ± 8.21 years in the PLSIF group (p = 0.460). The bone mineral density (BMD) of the two groups of patients were -2.00 ± 0.26 T and -2.13 ± 0.19 T, respectively (P = 0.239). The mean postoperative follow-up time was 12.7 months (range, 12-14 months). The mean operation time was 142.78 ± 11.21 min and 156.11 ± 13.41 min in the LP-PLSIF group and PLSIF group respectively (P < 0.05). The average blood loss was 137.78 ± 37.09 ml in the LP-PLSIF group, and 150.00 ± 27.84 ml in the PLSIF group (P = 0.441). The average postoperative drainage was 85.56 ± 37.45 ml and 122.22 ± 22.24 ml in the LP-PLSIF group and control group respectively (P < 0.05). Patients in the LP-PLSIF group had shorter incision length compared with the control group, 61.44 ± 10.56 mm vs. 74.56 ± 10.22 mm (P < 0.05). The average length of hospitalization of 11.33 ± 2.92 days in the LP-PLSIF group, and 11.11 ± 1.62 days in the PLSIF group (p = 0.844). All patients had significant improvement in VAS pain score, ODI, and JOA evaluation. However, patients in the LP-PLSIF group had better improvement in terms of VAS back pain and ODI in the short term after the operation. There were no neurological complications or wound infection. The fusion rate at the last follow-up was 100% (9 of 9) in the LP-PLSIF group, and 88.89% (8 of 9) in the control group based on CT scans. 1 patient in the control group had asymptomatic sacral pedicle screw loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

LP-PLSIF is a safe and effective surgical technique for patients with lumbosacral degenerative disease, which has the potential strength of less invasive and better clinical improvement.

Effectiveness of Teriparatide for Spine Fusion in Osteoporotic Patient: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to assess teriparatide's (TP) effectiveness in improving radiographic and functional outcomes after spinal fusion surgery. This meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies. The findings provide valuable insights and guidance for surgeons treating osteoporotic patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to assess TP's efficacy in spinal fusion surgery for osteoporosis. Through thorough selection, data extraction, and quality assessment, we employed network meta-analysis to evaluate radiographic outcomes (fusion rate, screw loosening, vertebral fracture) and changes in bone mineral density measured by Hounsfield units. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index scales. Our study aims to comprehensively understand TP's impact and effectiveness in spinal fusion surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 868 patients were included in the analysis. All patients underwent thoracolumbar internal fixation fusion surgery and were divided into following 2 groups: the TP treatment group and the control group. The results revealed significant differences in radiological outcomes. The fusion rate showed a significant difference, as well as screw loosening, and bone mineral density measured in Hounsfield units. However, there was no significant difference in vertebral fracture. The TP group demonstrated favorable effects with statistical significance. In terms of functional outcomes, there was no significant difference in the assessment of Oswestry Disability Index scores between the 2 treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis demonstrated that the TP group exhibited significantly better outcomes, particularly in radiological measures, when compared to the control group. The use of TP in spinal fusion surgery shows promise in reducing postoperative complications and providing overall benefits.