Pedicle screw navigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perforation risk for computer-navigated versus freehand insertion

A review

Restricted access

Object

In this paper the authors' goal was to compare the accuracy of computer-navigated pedicle screw insertion with nonnavigated techniques in the published literature.

Methods

The authors performed a systematic literature review using the National Center for Biotechnology Information Database (PubMed/MEDLINE) using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms “Neuronavigation,” “Therapy, computer assisted,” and “Stereotaxic techniques,” and the text word “pedicle.” Included in the meta-analysis were randomized control trials or patient cohort series, all of which compared computer-navigated spine surgery (CNSS) and nonassisted pedicle screw insertions. The primary end point was pedicle perforation, while the secondary end points were operative time, blood loss, and complications.

Results

Twenty studies were included for analysis; of which there were 18 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials published between 2000 and 2011. Foreign-language papers were translated. The total number of screws included was 8539 (4814 navigated and 3725 nonnavigated). The most common indications for surgery were degenerative disease, spinal deformity, myelopathy, tumor, and trauma. Navigational methods were primarily based on CT imaging. All regions of the spine were represented. The relative risk for pedicle screw perforation was determined to be 0.39 (p < 0.001), favoring navigation. The overall pedicle screw perforation risk for navigation was 6%, while the overall pedicle screw perforation risk was 15% for conventional insertion. No related neurological complications were reported with navigated insertion (4814 screws total); there were 3 neurological complications in the nonnavigated group (3725 screws total). Furthermore, the meta-analysis did not reveal a significant difference in total operative time and estimated blood loss when comparing the 2 modalities.

Conclusions

There is a significantly lower risk of pedicle perforation for navigated screw insertion compared with nonnavigated insertion for all spinal regions.

Abbreviations used in this paper:CAS = computer-assisted surgery; CNSS = computer-navigated spine surgery; EBL = estimated blood loss; MeSH = Medical Subject Headings; MIS = minimally invasive surgery; RCT = randomized controlled trial.

Article Information

Address correspondence to: Roger Härtl, M.D., Weill Cornell Brain and Spine Center, Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York Presbyterian Hospital, 525 East 68th Street, Box 99, New York, New York 10065. email: roger@hartlmd.net.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online June 22, 2012; DOI: 10.3171/2012.5.SPINE11399.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Diagram of the search strategy for our systematic review.

  • View in gallery

    Forest plot of the overall pedicle screw perforation risk. Events are perforations from the total number of screws. The dagger indicates the 2D navigation studies. All other navigation studies are 3D. M-H = Mantel-Haenszel.

  • View in gallery

    Forest plot of the pedicle screw perforation risk for each region of the spine. Events are perforations from the total number of screws per spinal region.

  • View in gallery

    Forest plots of the total operative time (in minutes) and EBL (in ml). IV = interval.

  • View in gallery

    Funnel plot for the Egger test (−0.48) demonstrated no publication bias (p = 0.47). RR = relative risk; SE = standard error.

References

1

Alberti ODorward NLKitchen NDThomas DG: Neuronavigation—impact on operating time. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 68:44481997

2

Amiot LPLang KPutzier MZippel HLabelle H: Comparative results between conventional and computer-assisted pedicle screw installation in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:6066142000

3

Arand MHartwig EHebold DKinzl LGebhard F: [Precision analysis of navigation-assisted implanted thoracic and lumbar pedicled screws. A prospective clinical study.]. Unfallchirurg 104:107610812001. (Ger)

4

Chen HJ: Clinical experiences in neuronavigation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 76:1451472001

5

Fraser JGebhard HIrie DParikh KHärtl R: Iso-C/3-dimensional neuronavigation versus conventional fluoroscopy for minimally invasive pedicle screw placement in lumbar fusion. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53:1841902010

6

Gebhard FWeidner ALiener UCStöckle UArand M: Navigation at the spine. Injury 35:Suppl 1S-A35S-A-452004

7

Gröbe AWeber CSchmelzle RHeiland MKlatt JPohlenz P: The use of navigation (BrainLAB Vector vision(2)) and intraoperative 3D imaging system (Siemens Arcadis Orbic 3D) in the treatment of gunshot wounds of the maxillofacial region. Oral Maxillofac Surg 13:1531582009

8

Han WGao ZLWang JCLi YPPeng XRui J: Pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine: a comparison study of computer-assisted navigation and conventional techniques. Orthopedics 33:DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20100625-142010

9

Hanley JAThériault G: Simpson's paradox in meta-analysis. Epidemiology 11:6136142000

10

Härtl RLham KWang JKorge AKandziora F: The AOSpine ANEG (Access and Navigation Expert Group) survey on the use of navigation in spine surgery. Presented at the Global Spine Congress 2011Barcelona, SpainMarch 23–262011. (Abstract) (http://www.neuro.opole.pl/gsc.pdf

11

Hernán MAClayton DKeiding N: The Simpson's paradox unraveled. Int J Epidemiol 40:7807852011

12

Holly LTFoley KT: Intraoperative spinal navigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:15 SupplS54S612003

13

Hozo SPDjulbegovic BHozo I: Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:132005

14

Ishikawa YKanemura TYoshida GIto ZMuramoto AOhno S: Clinical accuracy of three-dimensional fluoroscopy-based computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw placement: a retrospective comparative study of conventional versus computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw placement. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:6066112010

15

Ito HNeo MYoshida MFujibayashi SYoshitomi HNakamura T: Efficacy of computer-assisted pedicle screw insertion for cervical instability in RA patients. Rheumatol Int 27:5675742007

16

Jolesz FA: Intraoperative imaging in neurosurgery: where will the future take us?. Acta Neurochir Suppl 109:21252011

17

Kalfas IHKormos DWMurphy MAMcKenzie RLBarnett GHBell GR: Application of frameless stereotaxy to pedicle screw fixation of the spine. J Neurosurg 83:6416471995

18

Kosmopoulos VSchizas C: Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:E111E1202007

19

Kotani YAbumi KIto MMinami A: Improved accuracy of computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw insertion. J Neurosurg 99:3 Suppl2572632003

20

Kotani YAbumi KIto MTakahata MSudo HOhshima S: Accuracy analysis of pedicle screw placement in posterior scoliosis surgery: comparison between conventional fluoroscopic and computer-assisted technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:154315502007

21

Laine TLund TYlikoski MLohikoski JSchlenzka D: Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with and without computer assistance: a randomised controlled clinical study in 100 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J 9:2352402000

22

Lasio GFerroli PFelisati GBroggi G: Image-guided endoscopic transnasal removal of recurrent pituitary adenomas. Neurosurgery 51:1321372002

23

Lee GYMassicotte EMRampersaud YR: Clinical accuracy of cervicothoracic pedicle screw placement: a comparison of the “open” lamino-foraminotomy and computer-assisted techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:25322007

24

Liu YJTian WLiu BLi QHu LLi ZY: [Accuracy of CT-based navigation of pedicle screws implantation in the cervical spine compared with X-ray fluoroscopy technique.]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 43:132813302005. (Chinese)

25

Merloz PTroccaz JVouaillat HVasile CTonetti JEid A: Fluoroscopy-based navigation system in spine surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 221:8138202007

26

Nakashima HSato KAndo TInoh HNakamura H: Comparison of the percutaneous screw placement precision of isocentric C-arm 3-dimensional fluoroscopy-navigated pedicle screw implantation and conventional fluoroscopy method with minimally invasive surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:4684722009

27

Parker SLMcGirt MJFarber SHAmin AGRick AMSuk I: Accuracy of free-hand pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine: analysis of 6816 consecutive screws. Neurosurgery 68:1701782011

28

Rajasekaran SVidyadhara SRamesh PShetty AP: Randomized clinical study to compare the accuracy of navigated and non-navigated thoracic pedicle screws in deformity correction surgeries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:E56E642007

29

Richter MCakir BSchmidt R: Cervical pedicle screws: conventional versus computer-assisted placement of cannulated screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:228022872005

30

Sakai YMatsuyama YNakamura HKatayama YImagama SIto Z: Segmental pedicle screwing for idiopathic scoliosis using computer-assisted surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:1811862008

31

Schnake KJKönig BBerth USchroeder RJKandziora FStöckle U: [Accuracy of CT-based navitation of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine compared with conventional technique.]. Unfallchirurg 107:1041122004. (Ger)

32

Schulze CJMunzinger EWeber U: Clinical relevance of accuracy of pedicle screw placement. A computed tomographic-supported analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:221522111998

33

Seller KWild AUrselmann LKrauspe R: [Prospective screw misplacement analysis after conventional and navigated pedicle screw implantation.]. Biomed Tech (Berl) 50:2872922005. (Ger)

34

Silbermann JRiese FAllam YReichert TKoeppert HGutberlet M: Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw placement in lumbar and sacral spine: comparison between freehand and O-arm based navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 20:8758812011

35

Tian NFXu HZ: Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop 33:8959032009

36

Tian WLiu YJLiu BLi QHu LLi ZY: [Clinical contrast of cervical pedicle screw fixation assisted by C-arm fluoroscopy or 3D navigation system.]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 44:139914022006. (Chinese)

37

Tjardes TShafizadeh SRixen DPaffrath TBouillon BSteinhausen ES: Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions. Eur Spine J 19:25452010

38

Tonn JCSchichor CSchnell OZausinger SUhl EMorhard D: Intraoperative computed tomography. Acta Neurochir Suppl 109:1631672011

39

Tormenti MJKostov DBGardner PAKanter ASSpiro RMOkonkwo DO: Intraoperative computed tomography image-guided navigation for posterior thoracolumbar spinal instrumentation in spinal deformity surgery. Neurosurg Focus 28:3E112010

40

Wiesner LKothe RSchulitz KPRüther W: Clinical evaluation and computed tomography scan analysis of screw tracts after percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:6156212000

41

Wirtz CRAlbert FKSchwaderer MHeuer CStaubert ATronnier VM: The benefit of neuronavigation for neurosurgery analyzed by its impact on glioblastoma surgery. Neurol Res 22:3543602000

42

Youkilis ASQuint DJMcGillicuddy JEPapadopoulos SM: Stereotactic navigation for placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. Neurosurgery 48:7717792001

43

Yu XXu LBi LY: [Spinal navigation with intra-operative 3D-imaging modality in lumbar pedicle screw fixation.]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 88:190519082008. (Chinese)

TrendMD

Cited By

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 48 48 46
Full Text Views 52 52 22
PDF Downloads 98 98 46
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar