Dataset Information

Comparison of Three-Dimensional Fluoroscopy versus Postoperative Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Accurate Screw Placement after Instrumented Spine Surgery.

ABSTRACT: While intraoperative three-dimensional fluoroscopy does not possess the resolution and image quality of computed tomography (CT), it may provide adequate information about screw placement to guide intra- and postoperative decision making. We compared the accuracy of intraoperative three-dimensional fluoroscopy visualization of proper screw placement with that of postoperative CT. We retrospectively reviewed spinal instrumentation procedures done using the O-arm (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) that also had postoperative CT. All screws were assessed for placement accuracy on O-arm and CT images on a 4-point scale. In this study, 20 cases met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen breaches (11 grade 1 and 2 grade 2) were identified on O-arm images, and 14 breaches (10 grade 1, 3 grade 2, and 1 grade 3) were identified on CT. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 93, 99, 99, and 98%, respectively. The Kappa value (0.96) suggested a very high degree of agreement between three-dimensional fluoroscopy and CT in determining accuracy of screw placement. These findings may allow less frequent use of postoperative CT scans, improving cost effectiveness in patients who require spinal instrumentation procedures and potentially decreasing the number of patients who require replacement of an inappropriately positioned screw.

SUBMITTER: Garber ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3864486 | biostudies-other | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveRobot-assisted (RA) techniques have been widely investigated in thoracolumbar spine surgery. However, the application of RA methods on cervical spine surgery is rare due to the complex morphology of cervical vertebrae and catastrophic complications. Thus, the feasibility and safety of RA cervical screw placement remain controversial. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RA screw placement on cervical spine surgery.MethodsA comprehensive search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase Database, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, and Wanfang Database was performed to select potential eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparative cohort studies, and case series reporting the accuracy of cervical screw placement were included. The Cochrane risk of bias criteria and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria were utilized to rate the risk of bias of the included literatures. The primary outcome was the rate of cervical screw placement accuracy with robotic guidance; subgroup analyses based on the screw type and insertion segments were also performed.ResultsOne RCT, 3 comparative cohort studies, and 3 case series consisting of 160 patients and 719 cervical screws were included in this meta-analysis. The combined outcomes indicated that the rates of optimal and clinically acceptable cervical screw placement accuracy under robotic guidance were 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.1%-91.4%; p = 0.073; I2 = 47.941%) and 98.4% (95% CI, 96.8%-99.5%; p = 0.167; I2 = 35.954%). The subgroup analyses showed that the rate of optimal pedicle screw placement accuracy was 88.2% (95% CI, 83.1%-92.6%; p = 0.057; I2 = 53.305%); the rates of optimal screw placement accuracy on C1, C2, and subaxial segments were 96.2% (95% CI, 80.5%-100.0%; p = 0.167; I2 = 44.134X%), 89.7% (95% CI, 80.6%-96.6%; p = 0.370; I2 = 0.000X%), and 82.6% (95% CI, 70.9%-91.9%; p = 0.057; I2 = 65.127X%;), respectively.ConclusionRA techniques were associated with high rates of optimal and clinically acceptable screw positions. RA cervical screw placement is accurate, safe, and feasible in cervical spine surgery with promising clinical potential.

Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated differences in accuracy, operation time, and radiation exposure time between robot-assisted and freehand techniques for pedicle screw insertion. Two investigators independently searched for articles on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2012 to 2019. The final meta-analysis included seven RCTs. We compared the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, operation time, and radiation exposure time between robot-assisted and conventional freehand groups. Seven RCTs included 540 patients and placement of 2,476 pedicle screws, of which 1,220 were inserted using the robot-assisted technique and 1,256 were inserted using the conventional freehand technique. The pedicle screw positions were classified using the Gertzbein and Robbins classification (grade A-E). The combined results of Grade A [odds ratio (OR) =1.68; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.82-3.44; P=0.16), Grade A+B (OR =1.70; 95% CI: 0.47-6.13; P=0.42), and Grade C+D+E (OR =0.59; 95% CI: 0.16-2.12; P=0.42) for the accuracy rate revealed no significant difference between the two groups. Subgroup analysis results revealed that the TiRobot-assisted technique presented a significantly improved pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate compared with that of the conventional freehand technique, based on Grade A, Grade A+B, and Grade C+D+E classifications. The SpineAssist-assisted technique presented an inferior pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate compared with that of the conventional freehand technique, based on Grade A, Grade A+B, and Grade C+D+E classifications. No difference between the Renaissance-assisted and conventional freehand techniques was noted for pedicle screw insertion accuracy rates, based on both Grade A (OR =1.58; 95% CI: 0.85-2.96; P=0.15), Grade A+B (OR =2.20; 95% CI: 0.39-12.43; P=0.37), and Grade C+D+E (OR =0.45; 95% CI: 0.08-2.56; P=0.37) classifications. Regarding operation time, robot-assisted surgery had significantly longer operation time than conventional freehand surgery. The robot-assisted group had significantly shorter radiation exposure time. Regarding the pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate, the TiRobot-assisted technique was superior, the SpineAssist-assisted technique was inferior, and Renaissance was similar to the conventional freehand technique.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Three-Dimensional Fluoroscopy versus Postoperative Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Accurate Screw Placement after Instrumented Spine Surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets