Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleArticles

Reliability of the Planned Pedicle Screw Trajectory versus the Actual Pedicle Screw Trajectory using Intra-operative 3D CT and Image Guidance

Catherine A. Miller, Charles G. Ledonio, Matthew A. Hunt, Farhan Siddiq and David W. Polly
International Journal of Spine Surgery January 2016, 10 38; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/3038
Catherine A. Miller
1University of Minnesota Department of Neurosurgery, Minneapolis, MN
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles G. Ledonio
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew A. Hunt
1University of Minnesota Department of Neurosurgery, Minneapolis, MN
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Farhan Siddiq
3Jefferson University Department of Neurosurgery, St. Mary Medical Center, Langhorne, PA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David W. Polly Jr
2University of Minnesota Department of Orthopaedics, Minneapolis, MN
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1

    Axial and sagittal images of the virtual screw and actual screw angles relative to the mid sagittal line and superior endplate, respectively. (A) Example of most accurate screw placement (B) Example of least accurate screw placement.

  • Fig. 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2

    (A) The patient is in a prone position, and a reference frame is attached to a spinous process. (B) The O-arm is brought into the field and a CT scan obtained. (C) The position of the navigated instruments is projected onto the CT images on a monitor visible to the surgeon.

  • Fig. 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3

    Image of the Stealth Station navigation screen showing the axial, sagittal, and coronal virtual screw projection.

  • Fig. 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4

    Using a navigated screwdriver, the surgeon is able visualize the real-time trajectory of the screw on the Stealth Station screen during placement.

  • Fig. 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5

    AP and lateral spinal preoperative (A, B) and postoperative (C, D) x-rays after a Stealth guided posterior spinal instrumentation.

  • Fig. 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6

    Axial intraoperative CT scan of the three pedicle screws which were removed or revised. Two screws breached medially and one screw was too long.

  • Fig. 7
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 7

    Varying degrees of accuracy from an ideal screw trajectory in the lumbar spine.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Demographics

    Patient Demographics
    Mean age (range), yr44 (6-85)
    Sex, no. (%)
    Female17 (55)
    Male14 (45)
    Primary Diagnosis, no. (%)
    Degenerative disk disease8 (26)
    Scoliosis7 (23)
    Spondylolithesis6 (19)
    Pseudarthrosis3 (10)
    Trauma3 (10)
    Kyphosis2 (6)
    Tumor/metastatic disease2 (6)
    Fusion procedure, no (%)
    PSF16 (52)
    TLIF7 (22)
    Combined AP4 (13)
    Combined TLIF/PSF4 (13)
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Precision of O-arm assisted spinal navigation.

    LevelNo. of screwsAxialSagittal
    Mean virtual angle (°)Mean actual angle (°)Mean angle difference (°)Axial Percent errorMean virtual angle (°)Mean actual angle (°)Mean angle difference (°)Sagittal Percent error
    T1922.421.22.561.25%4.561.783.001.59%
    T21117.817.32.731.38%4.004.452.821.52%
    T31115.514.83.271.66%2.452.182.091.14%
    T4818.115.83.131.57%4.382.632.001.08%
    T51516.115.12.531.30%3.472.471.931.04%
    T61213.812.12.001.03%3.253.251.000.55%
    T71212.812.32.001.04%4.173.331.830.99%
    T81413.913.51.710.88%4.004.791.790.97%
    T91513.113.31.400.73%3.204.201.670.91%
    T101311.110.11.770.93%1.690.771.690.92%
    T11169.99.41.941.02%5.695.381.690.91%
    T12108.79.01.300.69%2.442.331.440.75%
    L11115.114.41.640.84%3.914.181.911.03%
    L21420.719.12.571.25%3.713.642.501.35%
    L31218.818.72.001.00%4.583.671.750.95%
    L41816.916.82.671.33%3.864.142.191.22%
    L52214.614.82.551.29%3.054.322.451.34%
    S11711.210.71.590.83%3.943.244.352.32%
    Total24014.814.22.171.113.673.492.161.17%
    P value 0.0016P value = 0.19
    • View popup
    Table 3

    Comparison of thoracic and lumbar screws.

    LevelNo. of screwsAxialSagittal
    Mean virtual angle (°)Mean actual angle (°)Mean angle difference (°)Percent errorMean virtual angle (°)Mean actual angle (°)Mean angle difference (°)Percent error
    Thoracic14614.113.42.141.10%3.633.261.881.02%
    Lumbosacral9415.915.5-2.221.12%3.733.862.611.41%
    P value = 0.882P value = 0.024
    • View popup
    Table 4

    Angulation difference based on distance from reference frame.

    Level from reference frameNo. of screwsAxialSagittal
    Mean virtual angle (°)Mean actual angle (°)Mean angle difference (°)Percent errorMean virtual angle (°)Mean actual angle (°)Mean angle difference (°)Percent error
    04514.114.31.830.9%3.03.62.021.1%
    16416.516.61.500.8%3.83.21.501.4%
    23715.514.62.221.1%3.43.62.220.9%
    33419.218.12.441.2%4.54.02.440.9%
    42314.113.32.131.1%3.73.12.131.3%
    51918.417.32.681.3%2.21.42.681.3%
    6936.235.42.561.3%5.45.72.561.2%
    7-10919.015.06.003.0%5.45.66.001.1%
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 10
1 Jan 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reliability of the Planned Pedicle Screw Trajectory versus the Actual Pedicle Screw Trajectory using Intra-operative 3D CT and Image Guidance
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Reliability of the Planned Pedicle Screw Trajectory versus the Actual Pedicle Screw Trajectory using Intra-operative 3D CT and Image Guidance
Catherine A. Miller, Charles G. Ledonio, Matthew A. Hunt, Farhan Siddiq, David W. Polly
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2016, 10 38; DOI: 10.14444/3038

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Reliability of the Planned Pedicle Screw Trajectory versus the Actual Pedicle Screw Trajectory using Intra-operative 3D CT and Image Guidance
Catherine A. Miller, Charles G. Ledonio, Matthew A. Hunt, Farhan Siddiq, David W. Polly
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2016, 10 38; DOI: 10.14444/3038
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Disclosures & COI
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Validity and reliability of a novel patient reported outcome tool to evaluate post-operative dysphagia, odynophagia, and voice (DOV) disability after anterior cervical procedures
  • Surgical Revision after Sacroiliac Joint Fixation or Fusion
  • A Rare Case of T1-2 Thoracic Disc Herniation Mimicking Cervical Radiculopathy
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • pedicle screws
  • accuracy
  • navigation

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire