The impact of misplaced percutaneous iliac dynamic reference frame pins used during navigated spine surgery: incidence and outcomes

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, and
  • | 2 School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

Image guidance requires placement of a dynamic reference frame (DRF), often either onto local spinous process or by freehand intraosseous DRF placement into the ilium via the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS). There is a paucity of studies in the literature that describe the complications of intraosseous DRF placement. The aim of this study was to describe the radiographic location, prevalence and nature of complications, and long-term clinical outcomes of attempted DRF placement into the PSIS.

METHODS

All lumbosacral spine surgical procedures performed between August 2019 and February 2021 at a single institution were queried, and operations in which a DRF was targeted to the PSIS were included. Patient demographic characteristics, indications for surgery, surgical outcomes, and complications were extracted. Intraoperative CT scans were reviewed by 2 independent researchers to determine the accuracy of DRF placement into the PSIS and to assess for DRF malposition.

RESULTS

Of 497 lumbar spine operations performed between August 2019 and February 2021 by 4 surgeons, 85 utilized intraoperative navigation with a PSIS pin. Thirteen operations were excluded due to an inability to visualize the entirety of the pin on intraoperative CT. Of 72 DRFs evaluated, 77.8% had been correctly placed in the PSIS. Of the 22.2% of DRFs not placed into the PSIS, 11 entered the sacrum, 6 crossed the sacroiliac joint, and 2 were deep enough to enter the pelvis. Pain at the pin site was present in 4 patients, of whom 3 had resolution of pain at the last follow-up evaluation. There were no significant complications due to DRF placement: no sacral fractures, significant navigation errors, retroperitoneal hematomas, or neurological deficits. Over a mean ± SD follow-up period of 9 ± 5.2 months, there were no incidences of pin site infection. Interrater reliability between the reviewers was 95.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study to examine radiological and clinical outcomes after DRF placement in the PSIS. In this study, a majority of pins were correctly placed within the PSIS, although 22.2% of pins were malpositioned. There were no serious complications, and a majority of those patients with persistent pin site pain had resolution at last follow-up.

ABBREVIATIONS

DRF = dynamic reference frame; PSIS = posterior superior iliac spine; SI = sacroiliac.

Images from Zhou et al. (pp 274–282).

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Kochanski RB, Lombardi JM, Laratta JL, Lehman RA, O’Toole JE. Image-guided navigation and robotics in spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2019;84(6):11791189.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    De Vega B, Navarro AR, Gibson A, Kalaskar DM. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement methods in pediatrics and adolescents spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J. Published online March 18, 2021. doi: 10.1177/21925682211003552

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Sun J, Wu D, Wang Q, Wei Y, Yuan F. Pedicle screw insertion: is O-arm-based navigation superior to the conventional freehand technique? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2020;144:e87e99.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Smith HE, Welsch MD, Sasso RC, Vaccaro AR. Comparison of radiation exposure in lumbar pedicle screw placement with fluoroscopy vs computer-assisted image guidance with intraoperative three-dimensional imaging. J Spinal Cord Med. 2008;31(5):532537.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Villard J, Ryang YM, Demetriades AK, et al. Radiation exposure to the surgeon and the patient during posterior lumbar spinal instrumentation: a prospective randomized comparison of navigated versus non-navigated freehand techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(13):10041009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Passias PG, Brown AE, Alas H, et al. A cost benefit analysis of increasing surgical technology in lumbar spine fusion. Spine J. 2021;21(2):193201.

  • 7

    Bortz C, Alas H, Segreto F, et al. Complication risk in primary and revision minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion: a comparable alternative to conventional open techniques?. Global Spine J. 2020;10(5):619626.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Hammad A, Wirries A, Ardeshiri A, Nikiforov O, Geiger F. Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):229.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Joseph JR, Smith BW, Patel RD, Park P. Use of 3D CT-based navigation in minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(3):339344.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Best NM, Sasso RC, Garrido BJ. Computer-assisted spinal navigation using a percutaneous dynamic reference frame for posterior fusions of the lumbar spine. Am J Orthop. 2009;38(8):387391.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Garrido BJ, Wood KE. Navigated placement of iliac bolts: description of a new technique. Spine J. 2011;11(4):331335.

  • 12

    Beldame J, Boisrenoult P, Beaufils P. Pin track induced fractures around computer-assisted TKA. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010;96(3):249255.

  • 13

    Board TN, Kendoff D, Citak M, Krettek C, Hüfner T. Soft tissue dissection in placement of reference markers during computer aided total hip arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg. 2008;13(4):218224.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Hernández-Vaquero D, Suárez-Vázquez A. Complications of fixed infrared emitters in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasties. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:71.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Hoke D, Jafari SM, Orozco F, Ong A. Tibial shaft stress fractures resulting from placement of navigation tracker pins. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(3):504.e5504.e8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Kim K, Kim YH, Park WM, Rhyu KH. Stress concentration near pin holes associated with fracture risk after computer navigated total knee arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg. 2010;15(4-6):98103.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Kurmis AP. Retained pelvic pin site debris after navigated total hip replacement: masquerading as an early-stage chondrosarcomatous lesion. J Postgrad Med. 2020;66(4):215217.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Skaggs DL, Samuelson MA, Hale JM, Kay RM, Tolo VT. Complications of posterior iliac crest bone grafting in spine surgery in children. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(18):24002402.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Fernyhough JC, Schimandle JJ, Weigel MC, Edwards CC, Levine AM. Chronic donor site pain complicating bone graft harvesting from the posterior iliac crest for spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(12):14741480.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Gjerde CG, Shanbhag S, Neppelberg E, Mustafa K, Gjengedal H. Patient experience following iliac crest-derived alveolar bone grafting and implant placement. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6(1):4.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Sheha ED, Meredith DS, Shifflett GD, et al. Postoperative pain following posterior iliac crest bone graft harvesting in spine surgery: a prospective, randomized trial. Spine J. 2018;18(6):986992.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Ilsar I, Weil YA, Joskowicz L, Mosheiff R, Liebergall M. Fracture-table-mounted versus bone-mounted dynamic reference frame tracking accuracy using computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery—a comparative study. Comput Aided Surg. 2007;12(2):125130.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Lin HH, Lu YH, Chou PH, Chang MC, Wang ST, Liu CL. Is bony attachment necessary for dynamic reference frame in navigation-assisted minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion surgery? Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon). 2019;24(1):712.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Shamrock AG, Patel A, Alam M, Shamrock KH, Al Maaieh M. The safety profile of percutaneous minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion. Global Spine J. 2019;9(8):874880.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Basil GW, Wang MY. Trends in outpatient minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2019;5(1)(suppl 1):S108S114.

  • 26

    Lambers AP, Salim XG, Jennings R, Bucknill AT. Morbidity and safety of iliac crest reference array pins in navigated total hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(5):15571561.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Smith BW, Joseph JR, Kirsch M, Strasser MO, Smith J, Park P. Minimally invasive guidewireless, navigated pedicle screw placement: a technical report and case series. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43(2):E9.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 663 663 112
Full Text Views 123 123 52
PDF Downloads 123 123 42
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0