Dataset Information

Is a cross-connector beneficial for single level traditional or cortical bone trajectory pedicle screw instrumentation?

ABSTRACT: The cortical bone trajectory (CBT) has been introduced with the aim of better screw hold, however, screw-rod constructs with this trajectory might provide less rigidity in lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR) compared to the constructs with the traditional trajectory (TT). Therefore, the addition of a horizontal cross-connector could be beneficial in counteracting this possible inferiority. The aim of this study was to compare the primary rigidity of TT with CBT screw-rod constructs and to quantify the effect of cross-connector-augmentation in both. Spines of four human cadavers (T9 -L5) were cropped into 15 functional spine units (FSU). Eight FSUs were instrumented with TT and seven FSUs with CBT pedicle screws. The segments were tested in six loading directions in three configurations: uninstrumented, instrumented with and without cross-connector. The motion between the cranial and caudal vertebra was recorded. The range of motion (ROM) between the CBT and the TT group did not differ significantly in either configuration. Cross-connector -augmentation did reduce the ROM in AR (16.3%, 0.27°, p = 0.02), LB (2.9%, 0.07°, p = 0.03) and flexion-extension FE (2.3%, 0.04°, p = 0.02) for the TT group and in AR (20.6%, 0.31°, p = 0.01) for the CBT-group. The primary rigidity of TT and CBT single level screw-rod constructs did not show significant difference. The minimal reduction of ROM due to cross-connector-augmentation seems clinically not relevant. Based on the findings of these study there is no increased necessity to use a cross-connector in a CBT-construct.

SUBMITTER: Cornaz F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8195405 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Ascertaining the accuracy of the pedicle screw (PS) trajectories is important as PS malpositioning can cause critical complications. We aimed to determine the angle range over which estimation is unreliable; build a low-cost PS placement support system that uses an inertial measurement unit (IMU) to enable the monitoring of surgical tools and PS trajectories, and determine the situations where IMU support would be most beneficial. In PS insertion experiments, we used cadaver samples that included lumbar porcine spines. Computed tomography images obtained before and after PS insertion were viewed. Offsets between the planned and implanted PS trajectories in the freehand and IMU-assisted groups were analyzed. The PS cortical bone breaches were classified according to the Gertzbein and Robbins criteria (GRC). Added head-down tilted sample experiments were repeated wherein we expected a decreased rostro-caudal rotational accuracy of the PS according to the angle estimation ability results. Evaluation of the PS trajectory accuracy revealed no significant advantage of IMU-assisted rostro-caudal rotational accuracy versus freehand accuracy. According to the GRC, IMU assistance significantly increased the rate of clinically acceptable PS positions (RoCA) than the freehand technique. In the head-down tilted sample experiments, IMU assist provided increased accuracies with both rostro-caudal and medial rotational techniques when compared with the freehand technique. In the freehand group, RoCA was significantly decreased in samples with rostral tilting relative to that in the samples without. However, In the IMU-assisted group, no significant difference in RoCA between the samples with and without head-down tilting was observed. Even when the planned PS medial and/or rostro-caudal rotational angle was relatively large and difficult to reproduce manually, IMU-support helped maintain the PS trajectory accuracy and positioning safety. IMU assist in PS placement was more beneficial, especially for larger rostro-caudal and/or medial rotational pedicle angles.

Project description:The expectations of both the patient and surgeon have been greatly revised in the last 10 years with the introduction of pedicle screws (PS) in spinal surgery. In this study, we have retrospectively evaluated and compared the results of PS instrumentation and the Hybrid System (HS), the latter consists of pedicle screws, sublaminar wire and hooks. The mean follow-up period was 60.1 months (range: 49-94 months) for the patients of the HS group and 29.3 months (range: 24-35 months) for those of the PS group. In the HS group, pedicle screws were used at the thoracolumbar junction and lumbar vertebra, the bilateral pediculotransverse claw hook configuration was used at the cranial end of the instrumentation, sublaminar wire was used on the concave side of the apical region and the compressive hook was used on the convex side. In the PS group, PS were used on the concave sides at all levels and on the convex side of the cranial and caudal end of instrumentation, in the transition zone and at the apex. The two groups were comparable for variables such as mean age, preoperative Cobb angle, thoracic kyphosis angle, lordosis angle, coronal balance, flexibility of the curve, apical vertebra rotation (AVR), apical vertebra rotation (AVT) and the number of vertebrae included in the fusion (p>0.05). The parameters of values of correction, ratio of correction loss, AV derotation, AVT correction ratio, amount of blood loss, operation time, postoperative global coronal and sagittal balance, thoracic kyphosis angle and lumbar lordosis angle were measured at the last follow-up and used for comparing the HS and PS groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for correction ratio, postoperative coronal balance, postoperative thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis angle, operation time, amount of blood loss and number of fixation points (p>0.05) The difference for the ratio of correction loss, AV derotation angle and the AVT correction ratio at the last follow-up visit and for the total follow-up period between the groups was found to be statistically significant (p<0.05). Although it is possible to obtain a similar amount of correction by either instrumentation system, the loss of correction seems to be lower with the more rigid PS construction. The PS system also has a stronger effect on vertebral bodies, thereby providing better AV de-rotation. There was no significant difference (p>0.05) between the groups in terms of correction rate, postoperative coronal and sagittal balance, operation time, blood loss and number of fixation points. This may indicate that anchor points are more important than the use--or not--of screws. Correction durability and AV de-rotation was better with PS instrumentation, while AVT was better corrected by HS instrumentation (p<0.05). We propose that the reason for the better correction of AVT with HS instrumentation is the forceful translation offered by the sublaminar wire at the apical region, while the reason for the better correction durability of the PS instrumentation may be due to the fact that multiple pedicle screws which afford three-column control are better at maintaining the correction and preventing late deterioration.

Dataset Information

Is a cross-connector beneficial for single level traditional or cortical bone trajectory pedicle screw instrumentation?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets