Pedicle screw navigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perforation risk for computer-navigated versus freehand insertion
A review
Search for other papers by Benjamin J. Shin in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Andrew R. James in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Innocent U. Njoku in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Roger Härtl in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
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.
© Copyright 1944-2023 American Association of Neurological Surgeons