Reduced loosening rate and loss of correction following posterior stabilization with or without PMMA augmentation of pedicle screws in vertebral fractures in the elderly

Background

Therapy of vertebral fractures in the elderly is a growing challenge for surgeons. Within the last two decades, the use of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures has been widely established. Besides vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, the augmentation of pedicle screws with PMMA found widespread use to strengthen the implant–bone interface. Several studies showed an enhanced pullout strength of augmented screws compared to standard pedicle screws in osteoporotic bone models. To validate the clinical relevance, we analyzed postoperative radiologic follow-up data in regard to secondary loss of correction and loosening of pedicle screws in elderly patients.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective comparative study, 24 patients admitted to our level I trauma center were analyzed concerning screw loosening and secondary loss of correction following vertebral fracture and posterior instrumentation. Loss of correction was determined by the bisegmental Cobb angle and kyphosis angle of the fractured vertebra. Follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans were used to analyze the prevalence of clear zones around the pedicle screws as a sign of loosening.

Results

In 15 patients (mean age 76 ± 9.3 years) with 117 PMMA-augmented pedicle screws, 4.3 % of screws showed signs of loosening, whereas in nine patients (mean age 75 ± 8.2 years) with 86 uncemented screws, the loosening rate was 62.8 %. Thus, PMMA-augmented pedicle screws showed a significantly lower loosening rate compared to regular pedicle screws. Loss of correction was minimal, despite poor bone quality. There was significantly less loss of correction in patients with augmented pedicle screws (1.1° ± 0.8°) as compared to patients without augmentation (5° ± 3.8°).

Conclusion

The reinforcement of pedicle screws using PMMA augmentation may be a viable option in the surgical treatment of spinal fractures in the elderly.     

Biomechanical comparison of sagittal-parallel versus non-parallel pedicle screw placement

Background

While convergent placement of pedicle screws in the axial plane is known to be more advantageous biomechanically, surgeons intuitively aim toward a parallel placement of screws in the sagittal plane. It is however not clear whether parallel placement of screws in the sagittal plane is biomechanically superior to a non-parallel construct. The hypothesis of this study is that sagittal non-parallel pedicle screws do not have an inferior initial pull-out strength compared to parallel placed screws.

Methods

The established lumbar calf spine model was used for determination of pull-out strength in parallel and non-parallel intersegmental pedicle screw constructs. Each of six lumbar calf spines (L1-L6) was divided into three levels: L1/L2, L3/L4 and L5/L6. Each segment was randomly instrumented with pedicle screws (6/45 mm) with either the standard technique of sagittal parallel or non-parallel screw placement, respectively, under fluoroscopic control. CT was used to verify the intrapedicular positioning of all screws. The maximum pull-out forces and type of failure were registered and compared between the groups.

Results

The pull-out forces were 5,394 N (range 4,221 N to 8,342 N) for the sagittal non-parallel screws and 5,263 N (range 3,589 N to 7,554 N) for the sagittal-parallel screws (p?=?0.838). Interlevel comparisons also showed no statistically significant differences between the groups with no relevant difference in failure mode.

Conclusion

Non-parallel pedicle screws in the sagittal plane have at least equal initial fixation strength compared to parallel pedicle screws in the setting of the here performed cadaveric calf spine experiments.     

Intraoperative PEEP-ventilation during PMMA-injection for augmented pedicle screws: improvement of leakage rate in spinal surgery

Background

Within the last two decades the use of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures has been established widely. Several techniques of cement application in spinal surgery have been described. Besides classical vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty and related techniques that reinforce stability of the fractured vertebral body itself, augmentation of pedicle screws became an issue in the past 10 years. Aim of this technique is strengthening of the implant-bone-interface and the prevention of loosening and failure of posterior instrumentation in limited bone quality due to osteoporosis. PMMA use in spinal surgery always bears the risk of cement leakage and cement embolism. There are only few publications dealing with cement leakage in pedicle screw augmentation. We examined our cohort concerning incidence and type of leakage in comparison to the literature. In particular, we evaluated a possible role of intrathoracic pressure during cementation procedure.

Patients and methods

In this retrospective study 42 patients were included. Mean age was 74 (57–89) years. 311 fenestrated, augmented screws were analyzed postoperatively concerning leakage and subsequent pulmonary embolism of cement particles. Overall, there was a leakage rate of 38.3 %, and 28.6 % of patients showed pulmonary embolism of PMMA. During surgery, patients were in part ventilated with a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 15 cmH₂O during cement injection. These individuals showed significantly less leakage locally as well as less PMMA-emboli in the pulmonary circulation in contrast to patients ventilated without increased PEEP.

Conclusion

PEEP elevation during administration of PMMA via fenestrated pedicle screws is reducing the leakage rate in spinal surgery. These beneficial effects warrant further evaluation in prospective studies.     

Surgical treatment of osteoporotic thoraco-lumbar compressive fractures: the use of pedicle screw with augmentation PMMA

Introduction

The osteoporosis prevalence in population is age related. The aim of this single-center observational study was evaluate the middle- to long-term performance of cement (PMMA) augmented fenestrated pedicle screws in elderly patients with thoraco-lumbar compressive fractures by osteoporosis.

Materials and methods

From 2011 to 2015 we treated 52 patients (20 males and 32 females) suffering from somatic osteoporotic fractures (T10–L2). The average age was 73.4 years, with an age range between 65 and 82 years. The treatment consisted of stabilization with pedicle screw augmentation with PMMA cement. Patients were clinically evaluated with Visual Analyzing System scale (VAS scale) and with low back disability questionnaire Oswestry, in pre and post surgery and during the follow up at 12 and 24 months.

Results

A total of 410 fenestrated pedicle screws with PMMA augmentation were implanted. No cases of loosening or pulling out of screws were recorded. There have been n 3 cases of thrombophlebitis, treated with oral anticoagulant drugs and 1 case of post-operative death due to ventricular fibrillation. No neurological complications occurred during the study. The mean VAS score decreased from 8.5 to 4.8 and the result remained stable during follow up. Oswestry questionnaire showed a mean decrease of low back pain of 24% in post-op period.

Conclusion

Fenestrated screws with PMMA augmentation offers a possibility to treat patients with reduced bone quality due to severe osteoporosis.

     

Biomechanical advantage of C1 pedicle screws over C1 lateral mass screws: a cadaveric study

Purpose

The established technique for posterior C1 screw placement is via the lateral mass. Use of C1 monocortical pedicle screws is an emerging technique which utilizes the bone of the posterior arch while avoiding the paravertebral venous plexus and the C2 nerve root. This study compared the relative biomechanical fixation strengths of C1 pedicle screws with C1 lateral mass screws.

Methods

Nine human C1 vertebrae were instrumented with one lateral mass screw and one pedicle screw. The specimens were subjected to sinusoidal, cyclic (0.5 Hz) fatigue loading. Peak compressive and tensile forces started from ±25 N and constantly increased by 0.05 N every cycle. Testing was stopped at 5 mm displacement. Cycles to failure, displacement, and initial and end stiffness were measured. Finally, CT scans were taken and the removal torque measured.

Results

The pedicle screw technique consistently and significantly outperformed the lateral mass technique in cycles to failure (1,083 ± 166 vs. 689 ± 240 cycles), initial stiffness (24.6 ± 3.9 vs. 19.9 ± 3.2 N/mm), end stiffness (16.6 ± 2.7 vs. 11.6 ± 3.6 N/mm) and removal torque (0.70 ± 0.78 vs. 0.13 ± 0.09 N m). Only 33 % of pedicle screws were loose after testing compared to 100 % of lateral mass screws.

Conclusions

C1 pedicle screws were able to withstand higher toggle forces than lateral mass screws while maintaining a higher stiffness throughout and after testing. From a biomechanical point of view, the clinical use of pedicle screws in C1 is a promising alternative to lateral mass screws.     

Influence of the screw augmentation technique and a diameter increase on pedicle screw fixation in the osteoporotic spine: pullout versus fatigue testing

Purpose

For posterior spinal stabilization, loosening of pedicle screws at the bone-screw interface is a clinical complication, especially in the osteoporotic population. Axial pullout testing is the standard pre-clinical testing method for new screw designs although it has questioned clinical relevance. The aim of this study was to determine the fixation strength of three current osteoporotic fixation techniques and to investigate whether or not pullout testing results can directly relate to those of the more physiologic fatigue testing.

Methods

Thirty-nine osteoporotic, human lumbar vertebrae were instrumented with pedicle screws according to four treatment groups: (1) screw only (control), (2) prefilled augmentation, (3) screw injected augmentation, and (4) unaugmented screws with an increased diameter. Toggle testing was first performed on one pedicle, using a cranial-caudal sinusoidal, cyclic (1.0 Hz) fatigue loading applied at the screw head. The initial compressive forces ranged from 25 to 75 N. Peak force increased stepwise by 25 N every 250 cycles until a 5.4-mm screw head displacement. The contralateral screw then underwent pure axial pullout (5 mm/min).

Results

When compared to the control group, screw injected augmentation increased fatigue force (27 %, p = 0.045) while prefilled augmentation reduced fatigue force (?7 %, p = 0.73). Both augmentation techniques increased pullout force compared to the control (ps < 0.04). Increasing the screw diameter by 1 mm increased pullout force (24 %, p = 0.19), fatigue force (5 %, p = 0.73), and induced the least stiffness loss (?29 %) from control.

Conclusions

For the osteoporotic spine, screw injected augmentation showed the best biomechanical stability. Although pullout testing was more sensitive, the differences observed were not reflected in the more physiological fatigue testing, thus casting further doubt on the clinical relevance of pullout testing.     

Biomechanical comparative study of the stability of injectable pedicle screws with different lateral holes augmented with different volumes of polymethylmethacrylate in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae

Background Context

Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) is widely used for pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporosis. Until now, there had been no studies of the relationship between screw stability and the distribution and volume of PMMA.

Screw perforation features in 129 consecutive patients performed computer-guided cervical pedicle screw insertion

Study design

A cross-sectional study of the data retrospectively collected by chart review.

Objectives

This study aimed to clarify screw perforation features in 129 consecutive patients treated with computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw (CPS) insertion and to determine important considerations for computer-assisted CPS insertion.

Summary of background data

CPS fixation has been criticized for the potential risk of serious injury to neurovascular structures. To avoid such serious risks, computed tomography (CT)-based navigation has been used during CPS insertion, but screw perforation can occur even with the use of a navigation system.

Methods

The records of 129 consecutive patients who underwent cervical (C2–C7) pedicle screw insertion using a CT-based navigation system from September 1997 to August 2013 were reviewed. Postoperative CT images were used to evaluate the accuracy of screw placement. The screw insertion status was classified as grade 1 (no perforation), indicating that the screw was accurately inserted in pedicle; grade 2 (minor perforation), indicating perforation of less than 50 % of the screw diameter; and grade 3 (major perforation), indicating perforation of 50 % or more of the screw diameter. We analyzed the direction and rate of screw perforation according to the vertebral level.

Results

The rate of grade 3 pedicle screw perforations was 6.7 % (39/579), whereas the combined rate of grades 2 and 3 perforations was 20.0 % (116/579). No clinically significant complications, such as vertebral artery injury, spinal cord injury, or nerve root injury, were caused by the screw perforations. Of the screws showing grade 3 perforation, 30.8 % screws were medially perforated and 69.2 % screws were laterally perforated. Of the screws showing grades 2 and 3 perforation, 21.6 % screws were medially perforated and 78.4 % screws were laterally perforated. Furthermore, we evaluated screw perforation rates according to the vertebral level. Grade 3 pedicle screw perforation occurred in 6.1 % of C2 screws; 7.5 % of C3 screws; 13.0 % of C4 screws; 6.5 % of C5 screws; 3.2 % of C6 screws; and 4.0 % of C7 screws. Grades 2 and 3 pedicle screw perforations occurred in 12.1 % of C2 screws, 22.6 % of C3 screws, 31.5 % of C4 screws, 22.2 % of C5 screws, 14.4 % of C6 screws, and 12.1 % of C7 screws. C3–5 screw perforation rate was significantly higher than C6–7 (p = 0.0024).

Conclusions

Careful insertion of pedicle screws is necessary, especially at C3 to C5, even when using a CT-based navigation system. Pedicle screws tend to be laterally perforated.     

Prospective comparative study between straight and curved probe for pedicle screw insertion

Purpose

To evaluate difference in accuracy of pedicle screw insertion in thoracic and lumbosacral spine using a straight pedicle probe vis-à-vis a curved one.

Methods

Prospective, comparative, non-randomized, single-blind study. Straight and curved pedicle probes used on opposite sides of same vertebra in patients undergoing thoracolumbar pedicle screw fixation for various indications. Postoperative blinded evaluation for pedicle breaches done with a CT scan. Pedicle breaches graded as grade 0: no breach, grade 1: <2 mm, grade 2: 2–4 mm and grade 3: >4 mm breach.

Results

After appropriate statistical power analysis, 300 screws inserted in 59 patients from T4–L5 levels. No significant differences noted between the two probes in terms of screw length [two-tailed p = 0.16]; grade 0 screws [two-tailed p = 0.49] or screws with grade 2/3 breaches [two-tailed  p = 0.68]. With the right-hand-dominant operating-surgeon standing to left of patient during surgery, no difference noted between the two probes for either the right or left-side pedicle screw insertion [two-tailed p = 1]. Repeating these tests in the subset of thoracic pedicle screws too, revealed no significant difference.

Conclusions

No significant difference in outcome of pedicle screw insertion with either a straight or a curved pedicle probe.     

CT-navigation versus fluoroscopy-guided placement of pedicle screws at the thoracolumbar spine: single center experience of 4,500 screws

Purpose

Single center evaluation of the placement accuracy of thoracolumbar pedicle screws implanted either with fluoroscopy or under CT-navigation using 3D-reconstruction and intraoperative computed tomography control of the screw position. There is in fact a huge variation in the reported placement accuracy of pedicle screws, especially concerning the screw placement under conventional fluoroscopy most notably due to the lack of the definition of screw misplacement, combined with a potpourri of postinstrumentation evaluation methods.

Methods

The operation data of 1,006 patients operated on in our clinic between 1995 and 2005 is analyzed retrospectively. There were 2,422 screws placed with the help of CT-navigation compared to 2,002 screws placed under fluoroscopy. The postoperative computed tomography images were reviewed by a radiologist and an independent spine surgeon.

Results

In the lumbar spine, the placement accuracy was 96.4 % for CT-navigated screws and 93.9 % for pedicle screws placed under fluoroscopy, respectively. This difference in accuracy was statistically significant (Fishers Exact Test, p = 0.001). The difference in accuracy became more impressing in the thoracic spine, with a placement accuracy of 95.5 % in the CT-navigation group, compared to 79.0 % accuracy in the fluoroscopy group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study underlines the relevance of CT-navigation-guided pedicle screw placement, especially when instrumentation of the middle and upper thoracic spine is carried out.     

Biomechanical comparison of vertebral augmentation with silicone and PMMA cement and two filling grades

Purpose

Vertebral augmentation with PMMA is a widely applied treatment of vertebral osteoporotic compression fractures. Subsequent fractures are a common complication, possibly due to the relatively high stiffness of PMMA in comparison with bone. Silicone as an augmentation material has biomechanical properties closer to those of bone and might, therefore, be an alternative. The study aimed to investigate the biomechanical differences, especially stiffness, of vertebral bodies with two augmentation materials and two filling grades.

Methods

Forty intact human osteoporotic vertebrae (T10–L5) were studied. Wedge fractures were produced in a standardized manner. For treatment, PMMA and silicone at two filling grades (16 and 35 % vertebral body fill) were assigned to four groups. Each specimen received 5,000 load cycles with a high load range of 20–65 % of fracture force, and stiffness was measured. Additional low-load stiffness measurements (100–500 N) were performed for intact and augmented vertebrae and after cyclic loading.

Results

Low-load stiffness testing after cyclic loading normalized to intact vertebrae showed increased stiffness with 35 and 16 % PMMA (115 and 110 %) and reduced stiffness with 35 and 16 % silicone (87 and 82 %). After cyclic loading (high load range), the stiffness normalized to the untreated vertebrae was 361 and 304 % with 35 and 16 % PMMA, and 243 and 222 % with 35 and 16 % silicone augmentation. For both high and low load ranges, the augmentation material had a significant effect on the stiffness of the augmented vertebra, while the filling grade did not significantly affect stiffness.

Conclusions

This study for the first time directly compared the stiffness of silicone-augmented and PMMA-augmented vertebral bodies. Silicone may be a viable option in the treatment of osteoporotic fractures and it has the biomechanical potential to reduce the risk of secondary fractures.     

Which posterior instrumentation is better for two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion: translaminar facet screw or pedicle screw?

Purpose

To determine whether translaminar facet screws can provide stability equivalent to pedicle screws and whether the two posterior instrumentations have the same influence on the adjacent segments in two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Methods

In a biomechanical study conducted, we used 12 fresh human lumbar spines and tested an intact spine with a stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion and anterior fusion augmented with pedicle screws or translaminar facet screws, under 400 N compressive preloads and 7.5 N m moments in flexion, extension, axial rotation and lateral bending, and measured the stiffness of the operated level, range of motion and intradiscal pressure at the adjacent levels.

Results

We found a significant increase in the stiffness of the segments operated, range of motion and intradiscal pressure at the adjacent superior segment in the stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion during flexion, axial rotation and lateral bending, but a decrease in extension, when compared with the intact spine. The stiffness of operated segments, range of motion and intradiscal pressure in the adjacent segment are significantly higher in the two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented with posterior instrumentation than in the stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion. There was no significant difference between the two augmented constructs except that, at the adjacent superior segment, the intradiscal pressure was more in the construction augmented with a pedicle screw than with a translaminar facet screw in flexion.

Conclusions

Translaminar facet screws can provide stability equivalent to pedicle screws, but their influence on the adjacent segments is relatively lower; therefore, we suggest that translaminar facet screws be the choice in the optimal posterior instrumentation in a two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.     

Accuracy of lower cervical pedicle screw placement with assistance of distinct navigation systems: a human cadaveric study

Purpose

Evaluate the accuracy of five different techniques for lower cervical pedicle screw placement.

Methods

Forty human cadaveric cervical spines were equally divided into five groups, and each group had eight specimens. Pedicle screws with dia. 3.5 mm were used. Group 1 was blind screw placement without any assistance; Group 2–5 was assisted by the X-ray fluoroscopy, virtual fluoroscopy navigation system, CT-based navigation system, and Iso-C 3D navigation system, respectively. Thereafter, cortical integrity of each pedicle was evaluated by anatomic dissection of the specimens.

Results

A total of 398 pedicle screws were inserted. In the Group 1–5, the average operation time per sample was 27 ± 3.0, 112 ± 10.3, 69 ± 6.4, 98 ± 11.0, and 91 ± 6.0 min, respectively. The outcome for excellent, fair and poor were 29 (36.3 %), 21 (26.2 %) and 30 (37.5 %) in Group 1; 35 (44.9 %), 29 (37.2 %) and 14 (17.9 %) in Group 2; 34 (42.5 %), 36 (45.0 %) and 10 (12.5 %) in Group 3; 70 (87.5 %), 10 (12.5 %) and 0 (0.0 %) in Group 4; 72 (90.0 %), 8 (10.0 %) and 0 (0.0 %) in Group 5.

Conclusions

Blind screw placement was surely unsafe. Lower cervical pedicle screw placement assisted by the CT-based navigation system or the Iso-C 3D navigation system significantly improved the accuracy compared to the fluoroscopy assistance and the virtual fluoroscopy navigation assistance.     

How Does a Novel Monoplanar Pedicle Screw Perform Biomechanically Relative to Monoaxial and Polyaxial Designs?

Background

Minimally invasive spinal fusions frequently require placement of pedicle screws through small incisions with limited visualization. Polyaxial pedicle screws are favored due to the difficulty of rod insertion with fixed monoaxial screws. Recently, a novel monoplanar screw became available that is mobile in the coronal plane to ease rod insertion but fixed in the sagittal plane to eliminate head slippage during flexion loads; however, the strength of this screw has not been established relative to other available screw designs.

Questions/purposes

We compared the static and dynamic load to failure in polyaxial, monoaxial, and monoplanar pedicle screws.

Methods

Six different manufacturers’ screws (42 total) were tested in three categories (polyaxial, n = 4; monoaxial, n = 1; monopolar, n = 1) utilizing titanium rods. An additional test was performed using cobalt-chromium rods with the monopolar screws only. Screws were embedded into polyethylene blocks and rods were attached using the manufacturers’ specifications. Static and dynamic testing was performed. Dynamic testing began at 80% of static yield strength at 1 Hz for 50,000 cycles.

Results

In static testing, monoaxial and monoplanar screws sustained higher loads than all polyaxial screw designs (range, 37%–425% higher; p < 0.001). The polyaxial screws failed at the head-screw interface, while the monoaxial and monoplanar screws failed by rod breakage in the static test. The dynamic loads to failure were greater with the monoplanar and monoaxial screws than with the polyaxial screws (range, 35%–560% higher; p < 0.001). With dynamic testing, polyaxial screws failed via screw-head slippage between 40% and 95% of static yield strength, while failures in monoaxial and monoplanar screws resulted from either screw shaft or rod breakage.

Conclusions

All polyaxial screws failed at the screw-head interface in static and dynamic testing and at lower values than monoaxial/monoplanar screw designs. Monoplanar and monoaxial screws failed at forces well above expected in vivo values; this was not the case for most polyaxial screws.

Clinical Relevance

Polyaxial screw heads slip on the screw shank at lower values than monoaxial or monoplanar screws, and this results in angular change between the rod and pedicle screw, which could cause loss of segmental lordosis. The novel monoplanar screw used in this study may combine ease of rod placement with sagittal plane strength.     

C-OnSite® for intraoperative 3D control of pedicular screw positions

Background

Two-dimensional image guidance and navigation can help to reduce the number of misplaced pedicle screws, but do not completely prevent misplacement. This experimental, retrospective, non-inferiority study was designed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of a novel 3D imaging technique versus conventional postoperative CT-scan, for intra-operative determination of pedicle screw position accuracy.

Methods

The capacity of C-OnSite® to intraoperatively assess screw placement was evaluated in 28 clinical cases and 23 deliberately misplaced screws in a cadaver model, and compared to placement accuracy determined by standard CT. The position of each implant, as viewed by both modalities, was graded by three neurosurgeons, one orthopaedic-surgeon and one radiologist. The intermodal variance determined the difference between CT- and C-OnSite® results for each observer, while the inter-observer variance measured the difference between ratings of the same modality by different observers.

Results

C-OnSite® successfully assessed 120/138 screws (25/28 cases). Mean procedural fluoroscopy time was 132?±?51s, and 40?±?16s per C-OnSite® scan. The average inter-modality variance was ,15 % with mismatches >1° between C-OnSite® and the gold-standard imaging technique in only 2 % of the comparisons. Average inter-observer variances were about similar (12 % for CT and 18 % for C-OnSite®), with deviations of >1° reaching 1 % for CT and 3 % for C-OnSite®. Individual variances between experienced only observers differed even less.

Conclusions

C-OnSite® is a feasible, reliable and intuitive means of intraoperatively visualizing pedicle screw positions and might render the majority of postoperative CTs superfluous. C-OnSite® might help avoid re-operations for screw re-positioning.     

A CT-based study investigating the relationship between pedicle screw placement and stimulation threshold of compound muscle action potentials measured by intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring

Purpose

Neurophysiological monitoring aims to improve the safety of pedicle screw placement, but few quantitative studies assess specificity and sensitivity. In this study, screw placement within the pedicle is measured (post-op CT scan, horizontal and vertical distance from the screw edge to the surface of the pedicle) and correlated with intraoperative neurophysiological stimulation thresholds.

Methods

A single surgeon placed 68 thoracic and 136 lumbar screws in 30 consecutive patients during instrumented fusion under EMG control. The female to male ratio was 1.6 and the average age was 61.3 years (SD 17.7). Radiological measurements, blinded to stimulation threshold, were done on reformatted CT reconstructions using OsiriX software. A standard deviation of the screw position of 2.8 mm was determined from pilot measurements, and a 1 mm of screw—pedicle edge distance was considered as a difference of interest (standardised difference of 0.35) leading to a power of the study of 75 % (significance level 0.05).

Results

Correct placement and stimulation thresholds above 10 mA were found in 71 % of screws. Twenty-two percent of screws caused cortical breach, 80 % of these had stimulation thresholds above 10 mA (sensitivity 20 %, specificity 90 %). True prediction of correct position of the screw was more frequent for lumbar than for thoracic screws.

Conclusion

A screw stimulation threshold of >10 mA does not indicate correct pedicle screw placement. A hypothesised gradual decrease of screw stimulation thresholds was not observed as screw placement approaches the nerve root. Aside from a robust threshold of 2 mA indicating direct contact with nervous tissue, a secondary threshold appears to depend on patients’ pathology and surgical conditions.     

Reliability and consequences of intraoperative 3D imaging to control positions of thoracic pedicle screws

Introduction

The insertion of thoracic pedicle screws (T1–T10) is subject to a relevant rate of malplacement. The optimum implantation procedure is still a topic of controversial debate. Currently, a postoperative computed tomography is required to evaluate the screw positions. The present study was undertaken to clarify whether intraoperative 3D imaging is a reliable method of determining the position of thoracic pedicle screws.

Methods

This prospective study involved 40 consecutive patients with thoracic spinal injuries, with intraoperative 3D scans being performed to determine the positions of 240 pedicle screws in T1–T10. The results of the 3D scans were compared with the findings of postoperative CT scans, using a clinical classification system.

Results

The positions of 204 pedicle screws could be viewed by means of both 3D and CT scans and the results compared. The 3D scans achieved a sensitivity of 90.9?% and a specificity of 98.8?%. The rate of misclassification by the 3D scans was 2.5?%. Nine pedicle screws were classified as misplaced and their position corrected intraoperatively (3.8?%). No screws required postoperative revision.

Conclusions

Performing an intraoperative 3D scan enables the position of thoracic pedicle screws to be determined with sufficient accuracy. The rate of revision surgery was reduced to 0?%.     

Is the 4 mm height of the vertebral artery groove really a limitation of C1 pedicle screw insertion?

Purpose

To explore the feasibility and effectiveness of C1 pedicle screw fixation in patients whose atlas vertebral artery groove (defined as the C1 pedicle) height is less than 4 mm, but with a medullary canal.

Methods

From January 2010 to January 2013, 7 patients (6 males, 1 female) with atlantoaxial instability whose C1 pedicle height was less than 4.0 mm on one or both sides were treated by C1 pedicle screw fixation at our institution. Thirteen of the 14 C1 pedicles were less than 4.0 mm in height, but all had a medullary canal. Patients were followed up at regular intervals. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were performed to assess if C1 pedicle screw placement was successful. Clinical outcomes were evaluated according to postoperative complications, the American Spinal Injury Association grading system, and bone graft status.

Results

Thirteen C1 pedicles with a height less than 4.0 mm were inserted by 13 3.5- or 4.0-mm-diameter pedicle screws, and one C1 pedicle whose height was 4.1 mm was inserted by a 4.0-mm-diameter pedicle screw. In addition, 14 pedicle screws were inserted in the axis. The mean follow-up period was 23 (range 8–38) months. No neurologic or vascular complications occurred in any of the seven patients. Postoperative CT three-dimensional reconstruction images showed that all 14 pedicle screws were inserted in the C1 pedicles without destruction of the atlas pedicle cortical bone. All patients demonstrated bony fusion 6 months postoperatively.

Conclusion

If there is a medullary canal in the C1 pedicle, a 3.5- or 4.0-mm-diameter pedicle screw can be safely inserted into the atlas and C1 pedicle screw fixation can be performed without any impact on fixation stability and clinical efficacy, even if the C1 pedicle height is less than 4.0 mm.