Leveron&Nexovas
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 11453  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (1,189 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusion
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed260    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded12    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 70  |  Issue : 8  |  Page : 195-199

iCT Navigation for Transpedicular Screw Fixation in the Thoracolumbar Spine: Experience in 100 Consecutive Cases


Department of Neurosurgical, Hirslanden Klinik Zürich, Witellikerstrasse 40, Zürich, Switzerland

Date of Submission13-Jan-2022
Date of Decision31-Jul-2022
Date of Acceptance01-Aug-2022
Date of Web Publication11-Nov-2022

Correspondence Address:
Michael Payer
Department of Neurosurgical, Hirslanden Klinik Zurich, Witellikerstrasse 40, Zurich - 8032
Switzerland
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.360699

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Background: Various guidance techniques have been developed for optimal pedicle screw placement. We present our initial experience with intraoperative CT (iCT) navigation for transpedicular screw fixation in the thoracolumbar spine.
Objective: This study aimed to describe the accuracy and reliability of iCT navigation for transpedicular screw fixation.
Material and Methods: One hundred consecutive patients underwent thoracolumbar pedicle screw fixation under iCT navigation. After iCT registration of the local bony anatomy with a firmly attached spinous process tracker, pedicle screw placement was performed under navigation with an infrared camera and infrared reflectors on insertion instruments. Screw trajectories of the intraoperative verification CT were matched against the navigation paths. Radiological and clinical follow-up was prospectively documented and retrospectively analyzed. The study included 47 women and 53 men with a mean age of 66 years. Indications for thoracolumbar pedicle fixation were degenerative instability with stenosis, cyst or disc herniation (82), spondylolytic instability (9), scoliosis with stenosis (6), and traumatic fractures (3). A total of 443 pedicle screws were inserted: 22 in the thoracic spine, 371 in the lumbar spine, and 50 in S1.
Results and Conclusions: Four hundred thirty-five out of 443 screws (98%) were correctly placed. Misplacement was explained by loosened infrared reflectors on pedicle awl or probe, or by the displacement of the spinous process tracker; misplaced screws were re-inserted intraoperatively and showed correct placement on the second verification CT. Based on our first 100 cases, iCT navigation for transpedicular screw fixation in the thoracolumbar spine seems to be very accurate and reliable.


Keywords: Intraoperative computed tomography, navigation, pedicle screws, placement, thoracolumbar spine
Key Message: Intraoperative CT navigation for transpedicular screw fixation in the thoracolumbar spine seems to be very accurate and reliable. It was particularly helpful in thin pedicles, kyphoscoliosis, and revision surgery, where anatomical landmarks and orientation are more challenging.


How to cite this article:
Payer M, Wiesli M, Woernle C. iCT Navigation for Transpedicular Screw Fixation in the Thoracolumbar Spine: Experience in 100 Consecutive Cases. Neurol India 2022;70, Suppl S2:195-9

How to cite this URL:
Payer M, Wiesli M, Woernle C. iCT Navigation for Transpedicular Screw Fixation in the Thoracolumbar Spine: Experience in 100 Consecutive Cases. Neurol India [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 3];70, Suppl S2:195-9. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2022/70/8/195/360699




Due to intraoperative imaging techniques and ongoing implant development, precision and revision rates of pedicle screw placement have significantly improved.[1] Optimal screw placement within pedicles is highly important for achieving maximum biomechanical strength and for avoiding neurovascular complications.[20],[21] Various guidance techniques have therefore been developed, from intraoperative exposure of medial pedicle walls[2] to fluoroscopic guidance[3],[4] and fluoroscopy-guided[4],[6],[7] or computed tomography (CT)-guided navigation.[3],[8],[9],[10]

Intraoperative navigation can be based on a preoperative CT data set, on intraoperative imaging via 3-D C-arm, or on intraoperative computed tomography (iCT). Very recently, robot-assisted pedicle screw placement was introduced as a new additional technique.[1] This study aimed to describe our initial experience with iCT navigation for transpedicular screw fixation in the thoraco-lumbar spine in 100 consecutive cases to confirm the accuracy and reliability of this technique.


 » Methods Top


After acquisition of iCT (Siemens, Munich) and navigation system (Brainlab, Munich), the authors started to use iCT navigation for all transpedicular screw fixations in the thoracolumbar spine in 2012. Patients from 2012 to 2016 were prospectively documented and retrospectively analyzed. No previous iCT navigation fixation had been performed by the authors, so the presented series reflects the authors' initial experience. All surgeries were performed by the authors at a single institution.

Surgical technique

In prone position on a radiolucent carbon table, the spinous processes and facet joints of the concerned levels are exposed through a standard posterior midline approach. The navigation tracker with infrared reflectors is screwed firmly onto a spinous process in the region to be instrumented. The mobile CT scan on rails acquires intraoperative images of the levels to be instrumented, thus matching the bony anatomy to the tracker. The navigation's infrared camera is aimed at the tracker, reading the infrared reflectors of the tracker, the pedicle awl and pedicle probe, and displaying the pedicle screw path and its length on the monitor. The screw driver is the only instrument not navigated. After all pedicle screws are inserted, a verification CT is run to assess the screw placement. If a misplaced screw is seen on CT, it can be removed and re-inserted, to be evaluated by another verification CT [Figure 1]. After the CT confirms correct placement of all screws, rod insertion and the decompression part of the procedure take place.
Figure 1: Representative example of iCT-navigated pedicle fixation at L4/5 for stenosis and bilateral articular cyst formation and disc protrusion: Intraoperative navigation trajectories match screw positions on verification CT

Click here to view


As the primary endpoint, iCT analysis of pedicle screw placement was performed by the surgeon team, assessing whether screw placement on the verification CT matched the navigation paths. The secondary endpoint for all patients was the one-year follow-up with screw purchase analysis on plain radiographs assessed by inhouse radiologists, as well as clinical assessment by means of patient-rated outcome of back and leg pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS).


 » Results Top


One hundred six (106) consecutive patients underwent operation. Five patients were unretrievable for follow-up and one patient had deceased from unrelated heart failure during the follow-up. Therefore, the study population comprised of 100 cases, corresponding to a response rate of 94%. There were 47 women and 53 men with a mean age of 66 years (range 38–86). The follow-up was 12 months in all cases [Table 1].
Table 1:

Click here to view


Surgical indications for stabilization were degenerative instability with stenosis, facet cyst or disc herniation in 82, spondylolytic instability in 9, scoliosis with stenosis in 6, and traumatic fractures in 3 cases. A total of 443 pedicle screws were inserted: 22 in the thoracic spine, 371 in the lumbar spine, and 50 in S1. Thirty pedicles were considered thin with less than 8 mm width on CT, all of them located in the thoracic spine or at L5 in isthmic spondylolisthesis. All pedicle screws were placed relying exclusively on spinal neuronavigation.

Intraoperative results

Mean surgical time was 151 minutes (range 80–240), and average estimated blood loss was 340 cc (range 100–800). Overall, 435/443 screws (98%) were correctly placed in the first attempt, as shown by correct position on the verification CT. Initial misplacement in 8/443 screws was explained by different factors: Three L5 screws in three different patients and two L4 screws in two different patients were misplaced due to loosened infrared reflectors on the pedicle awl or pedicle probe. Screw removal and re-insertion after exchanging the reflectors resulted in correct position at the second verification CT. Another two L4 screws and one L5 screw were misplaced in a single patient because of the patient's coughing during superficial anesthesia and displacement of the spinous process tracker before the screws were inserted. Tracker re-attachment and re-registration led to correct screw placement at the second attempt. None of the patients with re-positioned screws experienced neurological symptoms at the one-year follow-up. Only one patient with initially medially placed L5 screw suffered from temporary L5 dysesthesia for several weeks. Altogether 100% correct screw placement was achieved intraoperatively at either the first verification CT (98%) or the second verification CT (2%).

One-year follow-up results

Screw loosening was observed in 4/100 patients at the one-year follow-up. An L4 upper endplate fracture both in an 85- and an 81-year-old patients with osteoporosis after L4-5 fixation for degenerative anterolisthesis and stenosis led to severe ongoing back pain; re-operation was not warranted in both cases because of an increasingly fragile medical condition. Subsidence of T11/12 compression fractures led to minor screw displacement with moderate local pain in a 58-year-old male patient with osteoporosis after a T10-L1 fixation. Loosening of L4 screws after L4-S1 fixation for lytic spondylolisthesis in a 60-year-old patient led to moderate local pain.

The average VAS for back pain dropped from 4.9 preoperatively to 2.3 at the one-year follow-up, the VAS for leg pain from 6.4 preoperatively to 0.7 at the one-year follow-up.

Using the Macnab criteria, the patients' self-rating for global outcome at the one-year follow-up was “excellent” in 49% of patients, “good” in 39%, “fair” in 9%, and “poor” in 3%.


 » Discussion Top


Because of a wide range of definition and evaluation methods of misplaced screws, extremely variable misplacement rates are found in the literature.[11],[12],[22],[23] Less than optimal placement of pedicle screws in the thoracolumbar spine reduces biomechanical strength and poses a threat to the neurovascular and visceral structures.[10] Therefore strong incentives exist to improve pedicle screw placement accuracy, promoting the development of navigation systems.

While perfectly functioning navigation systems claim to be precise and reliable, in reality several variables can jeopardize the ideal implant positioning: Bending of instruments, motion of anatomy, and loosening of tracking references can be sources for navigation imprecision.[5],[24] Furthermore, surface matching and fluoro-navigation may create differences between navigation images and reality by image acquisition inaccuracies,[13],[25],[26],[27],[28] which can be overcome by intraoperative CT guided navigation. As the O-arm (Medtronics, Memphis) acquires a 3D data set of images with a reference frame attached to the spinous process we consider it equivalent to a CT navigation.[6],[7]

In CT navigation, the precise bony spinal anatomy is acquired over several vertebral levels for controlled implant positioning, and intraoperative CT verifies its own navigation results.[8],[9],[14] However, several challenges have to be dealt with:

-Tracker motion and infrared reflector loosening on navigation instruments, as experienced initially in our series, can be minimized with routine and careful observation and is readily corrected during surgery.

-Larger distances between tracker and instrumented levels may increase anatomy motion and thus navigation imprecision, as shown previously.[9] Re-registration of the tracker near the instrumented levels can overcome this problem.

-Mechanical or electrical blockage of the sliding iCT on rails or software failure in transmission of acquired CT images to the navigation system could prevent iCT navigation use. Although this did not happen in the current series, it did happen after the study completion during continuous use of navigation. If such technical failures cannot be overcome within reasonable time, the surgeon has to convert the procedure to traditional anatomic/fluoroscopic screw placement.

-Usage and maintenance of iCT navigation require qualified technicians and radiology assistants. Learning curves of such personnel require patience and training. The estimated average time consumption of iCT navigation use per patient was 20–30 minutes.

-Cost efficiency is difficult to assess: Major investment costs for iCT navigation may be outweighed by overall savings from avoided revisions, avoided law suits, and reputation gains. A cost utility analysis assessing medical and extra-medical variables is difficult to perform. However, Dea et al. found an economical justification for iCT navigation when compared to fluoroscopy guidance in high volume usage,[15] and Costa et al. could not find an economic disadvantage when comparing iCT navigation by means of an O-arm with preoperative CT based navigation.[16]

-Patient habitus could limit iCT use. However, Barsa et al.[8] report 82 surgeries with iCT navigation, documenting “Out of 571 implants inserted in all spinal levels, only five screws (0.87%) did not meet the criteria for correct implant position”” not needing re-placement. They found CT navigation quality sufficient at all segments and independent from the patient habitus.

In our experience, all these challenges were outweighed by the precision and safety of iCT-guided navigation: The overall, initially correct, screw placement in 435/443 screws (98%) is reassuring, as is the correction potential of initially misplaced 8/443 screws, which means that all of our 100 patients left the operating room (OR) with verified, correct thoracolumbar screw placement. In our view, this helps to explain the 96% fixation rate at the one-year follow-up, with screw loosening in 4/100 cases mainly attributed to osteoporosis.

We found the navigation particularly helpful in dysplastic and thin pedicles typically seen in the thoracic spine and in spondylolisthesis, kyphoscoliosis, and revision surgery, where high precision is warranted and anatomical landmarks and orientation are more limited. Because intraoperative verification CT is performed as a final check, postoperative radiographic controls are not necessary. Additionally, as no medical presence near the patient is mandatory during iCT registration or verification and no fluoroscopy is needed, the OR personnel has no radiation exposure, while the patient is subjected to CT radiation on a single event only.[17],[18] Furthermore, Mendelsohn et al.[19] showed that the average total radiation exposure to the patient for iCT-navigated thoracolumbar fixation was 5.69 mSv, less than a single routine lumbar CT scan with 7.5 mSv.[19]

This study naturally has several limitations: There is no control group, screw positions on the intraoperative verification CT were analyzed by the surgeon team itself and not by an independent expert, and the study reflects only a single neurosurgical team's experience.


 » Conclusion Top


Altogether, based on our first 100 cases, iCT navigation for transpedicular screw fixation in the thoracolumbar spine seems to be very accurate and reliable.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Declaration of patient consent

For this type of observational study formal consent is not required. Local ethical committee approval was obtained for this study (BASEC-Nr. 2019-00844).

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 » References Top

1.
Walker CT, Kakarla UK, Chang SW, Sonntag VK. History and advances in spinal neurosurgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2019;31:775-85.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Boachie-Adjei O, Girardi FP, Bansal M, Rawlins BA. Safety and efficacy of pedicle screw placement for adult spinal deformity with a pedicle-probing conventional anatomic technique. J Spinal Disord 2000;13:496-500.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bourgeois AC, Faulkner AR, Bradley YC, Pasciak AS, Barlow PB, Gash JR, et al. Improved accuracy of minimally invasive transpedicular screw placement in the lumbar spine with 3-dimensional stereotactic image guidance: A comparative meta-nalysis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015;28:324-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Shin MH, Hur JW, Ryu KS, Park CK. Prospective comparison study between the fluoroscopy-guided and navigation coupled with O-arm-guided pedicle screw placement in the thoracic and lumbosacral spines. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015;28:E347-51.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Boon Tow BP, Yue WM, Srivastava A, Lai JM, Guo CM, Wearn Peng BC, et al. Does navigation improve accuracy of placement of pedicle screws in single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis?: A comparison between free-hand and three-dimensional O-arm navigation techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015;28:E472-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Agrawal D. Usefulness of navigated O-arm in a teaching center for spinal trauma. Asian J Neurosurg 2016;11:298-302.  Back to cited text no. 6
  [Full text]  
7.
Singh PK, Verma SK, Garg M, Sawarkar DP, Kumar A, Agrawal D, et al. Evaluation of correction of radiologic parameters (Angulation and Displacement) and accuracy of C2 pedicle screw placement in unstable Hangman's fracture with intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation. World Neurosurg 2017;107:795-802.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Barsa P, Frőhlich R, Beneš V 3rd, Suchomel P. Intraoperative portable CT-scanner based spinal navigation-a feasibility and safety study. Acta Neurochir 2014;156:1807-12.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Scheufler KM, Franke J, Eckardt A, Dohmen H. Accuracy of image-guided pedicle screw placement using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation with automated referencing. Part II: Thoracolumbar spine. Neurosurgery 2011;69:1307-16.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Steudel WI, Nabhan A, Shariat K. Intraoperative CT in spine surgery. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2011;109:169-74.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Beck M, Mittlmeier T, Gierer P, Harms C, Gradl G. Benefit and accuracy of intraoperative 3D-imaging after pedicle screw placement: A prospective study in stabilizing thoracolumbar fractures. Eur Spine J 2009;18:1469-77.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Learch TJ, Massie JB, Pathria MN, Ahlgren BA, Garfin SR. Assessment of pedicle screw placement utilizing conventional radiography and computed tomography: A proposed systematic approach to improve accuracy of interpretation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:767-73.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Wang M, Song Z. Optimal number and distribution of points selected on the vertebra for surface matching in CT-based spinal navigation. Comput Aided Surg 2013;18:93-100.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Waschke A, Walter J, Duenisch P, Reichart R, Kalff R, Ewald C. CT-navigation versus fluoroscopy-guided placement of pedicle screws at the thoracolumbar spine: Single center experience of 4,500 screws. Eur Spine J 2013;22:654-60.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Dea N, Fisher CG, Batke J, Strelzow J, Mendelsohn D, Paquette SJ, et al. Economic evaluation comparing intraoperative cone beam CT-based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for the placement of spinal pedicle screws: A patient-level data cost-effectiveness analysis. Spine J 2016;16:23-31.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Costa F, Porazzi E, Restelli U, Foglia E, Cardia A, Ortolina A, et al. Economic study: A cost-effectiveness analysis of an intraoperative compared with a preoperative image-guided system in lumbar pedicle screw fixation in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine J 2014;14:1790-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Bandela JR, Jacob RP, Arreola M, Griglock TM, Bova F, Yang M. Use of CT-based intraoperative spinal navigation: Management of radiation exposure to operator, staff, and patients. World Neurosurg 2013;79:390-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Mroz TE, Benzel EC. Use of CT based intraoperative spinal navigation: Utility versus risk. World Neurosurg 2013;79:288-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Mendelsohn D, Strelzow J, Dea N, Ford NL, Batke J, Pennington A, et al. Patient and surgeon radiation exposure during spinal instrumentation using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation. Spine J 2016;16:343-54.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Kim HS, Wu PH, Raorane HD, Jang IT. Generation Change of Practice in Spinal Surgery: Can Endoscopic Spine Surgery Expand its Indications to Fill in the Role of Conventional Open Spine Surgery in Most of Degenerative Spinal Diseases and Disc Herniations: A Study of 616 Spinal Cases 3 Years. Neurol India 2020;68:1157-65.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
21.
Ravikanth R. Magnetic Resonance Evaluation of Lumbar Disc Degenerative Disease as an Implication of Low Back Pain: A Prospective Analysis. Neurol India 2020;68:1378-84.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Goyal N, Ahuja K, Yadav G, Gupta T, Ifthekar S, Kandwal P. PEEK vs Titanium Cage for Anterior Column Reconstruction in Active Spinal Tuberculosis: A Comparative Study. Neurol India 2021;69:966-72.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
23.
Tariq MB, Wu OC, Agulnick MA, Kasliwal MK. The 100 Most-Cited Papers in Traumatic Injury of the Spine. Neurol India 2020;68:741-59.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
24.
Garg M, Kumar A, Singh PK, Mahalangikar R, Satyarthee GD, Agrawal D, et al. Transpedicular Approach for Corpectomy and Circumferential Arthrodesis in Traumatic Lumbar Vertebral Body Burst Fractures: A Retrospective Analysis of Outcome in 35 Patients. Neurol India 2021;69:399-405.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
25.
Yerramneni VK, Kanala RR, Kolpakawar S, Yerragunta T. MITLIF Operative Nuances- Step by Step. Neurol India 2021;69:1196-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
26.
Grasso G, Paolini S, Sallì M, Torregrossa F. Lumbar Spinal Fixation Removal by a Minimal Invasive Microscope-Assisted Technique. Case Report with Technical Description. Neurol India 2020;68:1211-3.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
27.
Kandregula S, Guthikonda B. Minimally Invasive TLIF. Neurol India 2021;69:1141.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
28.
Krishnan SS, Nigam P, Vasudevan MC. Trans-Thoracic Extra-Pleural Percutaneous Spinal Fixation-A Technical Note. Neurol India 2022;70:1154-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow