Accuracy of Freehand versus Navigated Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw Placement in Patients with Metastatic Tumors of the Spine

Comparison of major spine navigation platforms based on key performance metrics: a meta-analysis of 16,040 screws

PURPOSE

The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare available computer-assisted navigation platforms by key performance metrics including pedicle screw placement accuracy, operative time, neurological complications, and blood loss.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using major databases for articles comparing pedicle screw accuracy of computer-assisted navigation to conventional (freehand or fluoroscopy) controls via post-operative computed tomography. Outcome data were extracted and pooled by random-effects model for analysis.

RESULTS

All navigation platforms demonstrated significant reduction in risk of breach, with Stryker demonstrating the highest accuracy compared to controls (OR 0.16 95% CI 0.06 to 0.41, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) followed by Medtronic. There were no significant differences in accuracy or most surgical outcome measures between platforms; however, BrainLab demonstrated significantly faster operative time compared to Medtronic by 30 min (95% CI - 63.27 to - 2.47, P = 0.03, I2 = 74%). Together, there was significantly lower risk of major breach in the navigation group compared to controls (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.63, P < 0.0001, I2 = 56%).

CONCLUSIONS

When comparing between platforms, Stryker demonstrated the highest accuracy, and Brainlab the shortest operative time, both followed by Medtronic. No significant difference was found between platforms regarding neurologic complications or blood loss. Overall, our results demonstrated a 60% reduction in risk of major breach utilizing computer-assisted navigation, coinciding with previous studies, and supporting its validity. This study is the first to directly compare available navigation platforms offering insight for further investigation and aiding in the institutional procurement of platforms. LEVEL 3 EVIDENCE: Meta-analysis of Level 3 studies.

Robotic assistance in lumbar fusion surgery: trends and patterns from 2016-2019

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted spine surgery is an emerging field that is growing in utilization. Intraoperative robotic surgical units cost upwards of $600,000 for medical facilities to purchase. Despite significant cost barriers, these devices are highly marketable for hospitals and physicians.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2019 was reviewed. Inclusion criteria were patients over 18 years of age who underwent elective lumbar spinal fusion. Trends of robotic-assisted lumbar fusion were examined over time, as well as stratified based on patient and surgical characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 176,377 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall rate of robotic-assisted lumbar fusion was 1.2% (2,131/174,246). Patients with private insurance were more likely to receive robotic-assisted lumbar fusion (40.3% vs. 37.5%; p < 0.05). Stratifying by race, whites were more likely to receive robotic-assisted lumbar fusion (84.1% vs. 79.5%; p < 0.05). Patients who underwent robotic-assisted lumbar fusion were significantly more likely to have a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis compared to those that underwent non-robotic-assisted lumbar fusion (25.9% vs. 22.0%; p < 0.05). Patients with lumbar fusion done via the anterior approach were more likely to have robotic-assisted surgery compared to other approaches (25.2% vs. 21.3; p < 0.05). Overall, there was a steady increase in its use over time, with patients who underwent lumbar fusion procedures four times more likely to receive robotic assistance in 2019 compared to 2016 (OR: 4.0; 95% CI: 3.5-4.6; p < 0.0001). Robotic-assisted lumbar fusion was associated with higher inpatient costs ($170,036.40 vs. $139,026.10; p < 0.0001) despite having equivalent length of stay (3.31 ± 2.6 vs.3.37 ± 2.6; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted lumbar fusion is on the rise. Patients who had private insurance, were diagnosed with spondylolisthesis, and who had lumbar fusion via the anterior approach were more likely to undergo lumbar fusion using robotic assistance.

Comparison of pedicle screw placement accuracy between two types of imaging support (Artis Zeego versus two-dimensional fluoroscopy): a cross-sectional observational study

Background

The pedicle screw system is widely used in spine surgery, and it provides rigid fixation and leads to successful subsequent deformity correction and bony fusion. The standard imaging technique for pedicle screw insertion is two-dimensional images obtained from C-arm-type X-ray fluoroscopy. Artis Zeego is an emerging intraoperative imaging technique that can provide conventional two-dimensional fluoroscopic images and rapid three-dimensional fluoroscopic computed tomography reconstruction imaging. The aim of this study is to compare the insertion accuracies of PS placement using Artis Zeego and conventional 2D X-ray fluoroscopy.

Methods

In this study, we retrospectively reviewed the postoperative images of thoracolumbar fusion patients who underwent surgery using pedicle screws between 2013 and 2018. Pedicle screw malplacement was assessed using a four-grade classification by Rao et al. Misplacement rates were compared between pedicle screws assisted with Artis Zeego and two-dimensional fluoroscopy.

Results

A total of 1107 pedicle screws in 153 patients were inserted using Artis Zeego, and 427 pedicle screws in 80 patients were inserted using fluoroscopy. The overall perforation rate was 4.2% (46 perforations of 1106 pedicle screws) in the Artis Zeego group and 7.7% (33 perforations of 427 pedicle screws) in the fluoroscopy group. In the Artis Zeego group, 43 (3.9%) screws were classified as grade 1, and three (0.3%) screws were classified as grade 2. In the fluoroscopy group, 21 (4.9%) screws were classified as grade 1, 10 (2.3%) screws were classified as grade 2, and 2 (0.5%) screws were classified as grade 3. The use of Artis Zeego was associated with a significantly lower screw malplacement rate than was the use of fluoroscopy (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our results demonstrated that pedicle screw placement with Artis Zeego was associated with a lower malplacement rate than was conventional two-dimensional fluoroscopy. No severe malplacement was observed in the Artis Zeego group. Thus, Artis Zeego could be a good option for improving pedicle screw accuracy.

Is the Use of Intraoperative 3D Navigation for Thoracolumbar Spine Surgery a Risk Factor for Post-Operative Infection?

Pedicle screw fixation is a technique used to provide rigid fixation in thoracolumbar spine surgery. Safe intraosseous placement of pedicle screws is necessary to provide optimal fixation as well as to avoid damage to adjacent anatomic structures. Despite the wide variety of techniques available, none thus far has been able to fully eliminate the risk of malpositioned screws. Intraoperative 3-dimensional navigation (I3DN) was developed to improve accuracy in the placement of pedicle screws. To our knowledge, no previous studies have investigated whether infection rates are higher with I3DN. A single-institution, retrospective study of patients age > 18 undergoing thoracolumbar fusion and instrumentation was carried out and use of I3DN was recorded. The I3DN group had a significantly greater rate of return to the operating room for culture-positive incision and drainage (17 (4.1%) vs. 1 (0.6%), p = 0.025). In multivariate analysis, the use of I3DM did not reach significance with an OR of 6.49 (0.84−50.02, p = 0.073). Post-operative infections are multifactorial and potential infection risks associated with I3DN need to be weighed against the safety benefits of improved accuracy of pedicle screw positioning.

Separation surgery for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: comparison of a minimally invasive versus open approach

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of separation surgery for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients undergoing MIS or standard open separation surgery for MESCC between 2009 and 2019 was performed. Both groups received circumferential decompression via laminectomy and a transpedicular approach for partial corpectomy to debulk ventral epidural disease, as well as instrumented stabilization. Outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were 17 patients in the MIS group and 24 in the open surgery group. The average age of the MIS group was significantly older than the open surgery group (65.5 vs 56.6 years, p < 0.05). The preoperative Karnofsky Performance Scale score of the open group was significantly lower than that of the MIS group, with averages of 63.0% versus 75.9%, respectively (p = 0.02). This was also evidenced by the higher proportion of emergency procedures performed in the open group (9 of 24 patients vs 0 of 17 patients, p = 0.004). The average Spine Instability Neoplastic Score, number of levels fused, and operative parameters, including length of stay, were similar. The average estimated blood loss difference for the open surgery versus the MIS group (783 mL vs 430 mL, p < 0.05) was significant, although the average amount of packed red blood cells transfused was not significantly different (325 mL vs 216 mL, p = 0.39). Time until start of radiation therapy was slightly less in the MIS than the open surgery group (32.8 ± 15.6 days vs 43.1 ± 20.3 days, p = 0.069). Among patients who underwent open surgery with long-term follow-up, 20% were found to have local recurrence compared with 12.5% of patients treated with the MIS technique. No patients in either group developed hardware failure requiring revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS for MESCC is a safe and effective approach for decompression and stabilization compared with standard open separation surgery, and it significantly reduced blood loss during surgery. Although there was a trend toward a faster time to starting radiation treatment in the MIS group, both groups received similar postoperative radiotherapy doses, with similar rates of local recurrence and hardware failure. An increased ability to perform MIS in emergency settings as well as larger, prospective studies are needed to determine the potential benefits of MIS over standard open separation surgery.