Skip to main content
Log in

Percutaneous pedicle screw placements: accuracy and rates of cranial facet joint violation using conventional fluoroscopy compared with intraoperative three-dimensional computed tomography computer navigation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The goal of this study was to compare the accuracy and cranial facet joint violation rates between percutaneous pedicle screw placements using conventional fluoroscopy and intraoperative 3-D CT (O-arm) computer navigation.

Methods

We reviewed 194 pedicle screw of 28 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar or thoracic spinal stabilization. The accuracy of screw placement was evaluated according to two criteria published by Neo et al. and Upendra et al. Facet joint violation was evaluated according to the classification described by Babu et al.

Results

Upon Neo grading, CFT group had 19.4 % (14/72) pedicle breach rate and CT-IGN group had a 5.7 % (7/122) pedicle breach rate (p < 0.005). The same sets of screws were also assessed using the outcome-based classification established by Upendra. There were no screw caused neurovascular injuries (type 3 = 0) in both groups. The results showed that 87.5 % (63/72) screws had acceptable placements (type I) and 12.5 % (9/72) had unacceptable placements (type II) in CFT group. In contrast, 94.3 % (115/122) screw had acceptable placements (type I) and only 5.7 % (7/122) had unacceptable placements (type II) in CT-IGN group. Additionally, CFT group had a significantly higher facet joint violation rate of 30.5 % (11/36) than CT-IGN group that had a 3.8 % (3/79) violation rate (p < 0.005).

Conclusion

This study indicated the use of intraoperative CT imaging (O-arm) navigation in PPS placement have very beneficial implications for MIS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:S26–S35. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000076895.52418.5E

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY (2005) Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rampersaud YR, Foley KT, Shen AC, Williams S, Solomito M (2000) Radiation exposure to the spine surgeon during fluoroscopically assisted pedicle screw insertion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2637–2645

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gu G, Zhang H, He S, Cai X, Gu X, Jia J, Fu Q, Zhou X (2013) Percutaneous pedicle screw placement in lumbar spine: a comparison study between the novel guidance system and the conventional fluoroscopy method. J Spinal Dis Tech. doi:10.1097/bsd.0b013e3182aab222

    Google Scholar 

  5. Heintel TM, Berglehner A, Meffert R (2013) Accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screws for thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: a prospective trial. Eur Spine J 22:495–502. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2476-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim MC, Chung HT, Cho JL, Kim DJ, Chung NS (2011) Factors affecting the accurate placement of percutaneous pedicle screws during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 20:1635–1643. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1892-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Nakashima H, Sato K, Ando T, Inoh H, Nakamura H (2009) 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 Dis Tech 22:468–472. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31819877c8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Oh HS, Kim JS, Lee SH, Liu WC, Hong SW (2013) Comparison between the accuracy of percutaneous and open pedicle screw fixations in lumbosacral fusion. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 13:1751–1757. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.03.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Park DK, Thomas AO, St Clair S, Bawa M (2014) Percutaneous lumbar and thoracic pedicle screws: a trauma experience. J Spinal Dis Tech 27:154–161. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318250ec75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Babu R, Park JG, Mehta AI, Shan T, Grossi PM, Brown CR, Richardson WJ, Isaacs RE, Bagley CA, Kuchibhatla M, Gottfried ON (2012) Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Neurosurgery 71:962–970. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31826a88c8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Jones-Quaidoo SM, Djurasovic M, Owens RK 2nd, Carreon LY (2013) Superior articulating facet violation: percutaneous versus open techniques. J Neurosurg Spine 18:593–597. doi:10.3171/2013.3.SPINE12829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Takahashi J, Hirabayashi H, Hashidate H, Ogihara N, Kato H (2010) Accuracy of multilevel registration in image-guided pedicle screw insertion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:347–352. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b77f0a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Aoude AA, Fortin M, Figueiredo R, Jarzem P, Ouellet J, Weber MH (2015) Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 24:990–1004. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3853-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fraser J, Gebhard H, Irie D, Parikh K, Hartl R (2010) Iso-C/3-dimensional neuronavigation versus conventional fluoroscopy for minimally invasive pedicle screw placement in lumbar fusion. Min Invasive Neurosurg MIN 53:184–190. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1267926

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ishikawa Y, Kanemura T, Yoshida G, Ito Z, Muramoto A, Ohno S (2010) 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. J Neurosurg Spine 13:606–611. doi:10.3171/2010.5.SPINE09993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Neo M, Sakamoto T, Fujibayashi S, Nakamura T (2005) The clinical risk of vertebral artery injury from cervical pedicle screws inserted in degenerative vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2800–2805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Upendra BN, Meena D, Chowdhury B, Ahmad A, Jayaswal A (2008) Outcome-based classification for assessment of thoracic pedicular screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:384–390. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181646ba1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee SM, Kim JH, Chung ER (2001) Thoracic pedicle screw fixation in spinal deformities: are they really safe? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:2049–2057

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Yalcin S, Guven O (1995) Reversible anterior cord syndrome due to penetration of the spinal canal by pedicular screws. Paraplegia 33:423–425. doi:10.1038/sc.1995.84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saraf SK, Singh RP, Singh V, Varma A (2013) Pullout strength of misplaced pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae—a cadaveric study. Indian J Orthop 47:238–243. doi:10.4103/0019-5413.111502

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1938–1944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang L, Wang Y, Yu B, Li Z, Li Y (2015) Comparison of cranial facet joint violation rate between percutaneous and open pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 94:e504. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000000504

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen Z, Zhao J, Xu H, Liu A, Yuan J, Wang C (2008) Technical factors related to the incidence of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation after transpedicular instrumentation in the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 17:1476–1480. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0776-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Yson SC, Sembrano JN, Sanders PC, Santos ER, Ledonio CG, Polly DW Jr (2013) Comparison of cranial facet joint violation rates between open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement using intraoperative 3-D CT (O-arm) computer navigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E251–E258. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827ecbf1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tian W, Xu Y, Liu B, Liu Y, He D, Yuan Q, Lang Z, Lyu Y, Han X, Jin P (2014) Lumbar spine superior-level facet joint violations: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw insertion using intraoperative 3-dimensional computer-assisted navigation. Chin Med J (Engl) 127:3852–3856

    Google Scholar 

  26. Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Sung NY (2011) Cranial facet joint violations by percutaneously placed pedicle screws adjacent to a minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 11:295–302. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Patel RD, Graziano GP, Vanderhave KL, Patel AA, Gerling MC (2011) Facet violation with the placement of percutaneous pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E1749–E1752. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318221a800

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tetsuro Ohba.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ohba, T., Ebata, S., Fujita, K. et al. Percutaneous pedicle screw placements: accuracy and rates of cranial facet joint violation using conventional fluoroscopy compared with intraoperative three-dimensional computed tomography computer navigation. Eur Spine J 25, 1775–1780 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4489-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4489-1

Keywords

Navigation