Dataset Information

Systematic review of cortical bone trajectory versus pedicle screw techniques for lumbosacral spine fusion.

ABSTRACT: Fusion of the lumbosacral spine is a common surgical procedure to address a range of spinal pathologies. Fixation in lumbar fusion has traditionally been performed using pedicle screw (PS) augmentation. However, an alternative method of screw insertion via cortical bone trajectory (CBT) has been advocated as a less invasive approach which improves initial fixation and reduces neurovascular injury. There is a paucity of robust clinical evidence to support these claims, particularly in comparison to traditional pedicle screws. This study aims to review the available evidence to assess the merits of the CBT approach. Six electronic databases were searched for original published studies which compared CBT with traditional PS and their findings reviewed. Nine comparative studies were identified through a comprehensive literature search. Studies were classified as retrospective cohort, prospective cohort or case control studies with medium quality as assessed by the GRADE criteria. The available literature is not cohesive regarding outcomes and complications of CBT versus PT procedures. Most studies found no difference in operative time, but reported less blood loss during CBT. Radiological outcomes show no difference in slippage at one year although CBT is associated with greater bone-density compared to PT. Results for post-operative pain are inconclusive.

SUBMITTER: Phan K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5760410 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of cortical bone trajectory versus pedicle screw techniques for lumbosacral spine fusion.

Phan Kevin K Ramachandran Vignesh V Tran Tommy M TM Shah Kevin P KP Fadhil Matthew M Lackey Alan A Chang Nicholas N Wu Ai-Min AM Mobbs Ralph J RJ

Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) 20171201 4

Fusion of the lumbosacral spine is a common surgical procedure to address a range of spinal pathologies. Fixation in lumbar fusion has traditionally been performed using pedicle screw (PS) augmentation. However, an alternative method of screw insertion via cortical bone trajectory (CBT) has been advocated as a less invasive approach which improves initial fixation and reduces neurovascular injury. There is a paucity of robust clinical evidence to support these claims, particularly in comparison ...[more]

PMID: 29354747

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe anterior pedicle screw (APS) technique for L5 and S1 is crucial for proper anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). This study aimed to determine the projection, screw trajectory angle, and bone screw passageway length (BSPL), as well as the screw insertion regularity and the operating area within which it is safe to perform insertion.MethodsForty patients with low back pain, all of whom had lumbar computed tomography scans available, was included in this retrospective analysis. Radiographic parameters were measured, including: the distances from the projection to the upper endplate, lower endplate, and midline; the transverse and sagittal screw angles; and the BSPL. In addition, 10 fresh adult cadaveric lumbosacral spine segments were selected to determine the safe anatomic area in which to operate. Finally, APSs were inserted in L5 and S1 to determine the regularity of APS insertion.ResultsWe measured the anterior projection parameters, including: the distances to the upper endplate (L5: 12.5±1.3 mm; S1: 4.54±0.87 mm), lower endplate (L5: 17.3±1.6 mm), and midline (L5: 6.6±0.7 mm; S1: 6.6±0.6 mm); the screw trajectory angle, including the transverse screw angle (L5: 25.3±2.8°; S1: 25.7±2.6°), sagittal screw angle (L5: 17.1±1.7°; S1: 22.4±1.1°); and the BSPL (L5: 48.6±3.5 mm; S1: 48.0±3.5 mm). The regularity of APS insertion in L5 and S1 was determined. Upon the needle reaching a point in the lateral view, it reached the corresponding point in the anteroposterior (AP) view. The anatomic parameters of the safe operating area were as follows: the distance from the abdominal aortic bifurcation to the L5 lower edge (40.50±9.40 mm); the distance from the common iliac vein confluence to the L5 lower edge (27.80±8.60 mm); and the horizontal distance from the inner edge of the common iliac vein to the L5 lower edge (37.50±1.30 mm). We also determined the distance between S1 holes (29.30±1.30 mm), the L5/S1 intervertebral height (17.20±1.50 mm), and the safe operating area (2,058.20±84.30 mm2).ConclusionsThis study has determined the projection, screw trajectory angle, and BSPL of APSs in L5 and S1, their insertion regularity, and the area in which the operation can be safely performed.

Project description:IntroductionTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disorders and shows favourable clinical results. Recently, cortical bone trajectory (CBT) has become a new trajectory for screw insertion in the lumbar spine. Several biomechanical studies have demonstrated that the CBT technique achieves screw purchase and strength greater than the traditional method. Currently, the available data on the clinical effectiveness of the two performed surgeries, TLIF with CBT screws (CBT-TLIF) and TLIF with traditional pedicle screws (PS-TLIF), are insufficient. This is the first randomised study to compare CBT-TLIF against traditional PS fixation and will provide recommendations for treating patients with lumbar degenerative disc disorders.Methods and analysisA blinded randomised controlled trial (blinding for the patient and statistician, rather than for the clinician and researcher) will be conducted. A total of 254 participants with lumbar disc degenerative disease who are candidates for TLIF surgery will be randomly allocated to either the CBT-TLIF group or the PS-TLIF group at a ratio of 1:1. The primary clinical outcome measures are the incidence of adjacent cranial facet joint violation, fusion rate and the screw loosening rate. Secondary clinical outcome measures are Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of back pain, VAS of leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, operative time, intraoperative blood loss and complications. These parameters will be evaluated on day 3, and then at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (batch: 2017-03). The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and an international spine-related meeting after completion of the study.Trial registration numberNCT03105167; Pre-results.

Project description:Background contextFluoroscopic devices can be used to visualize subcutaneous and osseous tissue, a useful feature during pedicle screw insertion in lumbar fusion surgery. It is important that both patient and surgeon are exposed as little as possible, since these devices use potential harmful ionizing radiation.PurposeThis study aims to compare radiation exposure of different image-guided techniques in lumbar fusion surgery with pedicle screw insertion.Study designSystematic review.MethodsCochrane, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were used to acquire relevant studies. Eligibility criteria were lumbar and/or sacral spine, pedicle screw, mGray and/or Sievert and/or mrem, radiation dose and/or radiation exposure. Image-guided techniques were divided in five groups: conventional C-arm, C-arm navigation, C-arm robotic, O-arm navigation and O-arm robotic. Comparisons were made based on effective dose for patients and surgeons, absorbed dose for patients and surgeons and exposure. Risk of bias was assessed using the 2017 Cochrane Risk of Bias tool on RCTs and the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool on NRCTs. Level of evidence was assessed using the guidelines of Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2011.ResultsA total of 1423 studies were identified of which 38 were included in the analysis and assigned to one of the five groups. Results of radiation dose per procedure and per pedicle screw were described in dose ranges. Conventional C-arm appeared to result in higher effective dose for surgeons, higher absorbed dose for patients and higher exposure, compared to C-arm navigation/robotic and O-arm navigation/robotic. Level of evidence was 3 to 4 in 29 studies. Risk of bias of RCTs was intermediate, mostly due to inadequate blinding. Overall risk of bias score in NRCTs was determined as 'serious'.ConclusionsRanges of radiation doses using different modalities during pedicle screw insertion in lumbar fusion surgery are wide. Based on the highest numbers in the ranges, conventional C-arm tends to lead to a higher effective dose for surgeons, higher absorbed dose for patients and higher exposure, compared to C-arm-, and O-arm navigation/robotic. The level of evidence is low and risk of bias is fairly high. In future studies, heterogeneity should be limited by standardizing measurement methods and thoroughly describing the image-guided technique settings.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of cortical bone trajectory versus pedicle screw techniques for lumbosacral spine fusion.

Publications

Systematic review of cortical bone trajectory versus pedicle screw techniques for lumbosacral spine fusion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets