Traditional Pedicle Screw Research Articles

Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease

Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) are two minimally invasive lumbar fusion methods that have gained popularity in the past two decades. MIDLIF involves the use of cortical bone trajectory screws, whereas MIS-TLIF uses traditional pedicle screws. However, there is a significant lack of research directly examining the clinical efficacy of these two methods in treating single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases. Hence, the objective of our retrospective study is to assess and contrast the surgical and clinical results of MIDLIF and MIS-TLIF. The study population comprised 133 patients diagnosed with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease that received treatment using either MIDLIF (n = 65) or MIS-TLIF (n = 68) in our department from January 2017 to January 2019. The fusion rates for MIDLIF were consistently lower than MID-TLIF at all post-operative time periods of follow-up, however, the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. The 1-year fusion rates were 81.5% (MIDLIF) and 83.8% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.728), and the 2-year fusion rates were 87.7% (MIDLIF) and 91.2% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.513). The final follow-up fusion rates were 93.8% (MIDLIF) and 95.6% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.653). MIDLIF had several advantages over MIS-TLIF, including a shorter operative time (135.2 ± 15.70 vs. 160.1 ± 17.2 min, P < 0.001), decreased intraoperative blood loss (147.9 ± 36.4 vs. 169.5 ± 24.7 mL, P < 0.001), and a shorter length of hospital stay (10.8 ± 3.1 vs. 12.4 ± 4.1d; P = 0.014). No significant differences were seen between the groups in terms of the postoperative day of ambulation, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) scores, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg and lower back pain (P > 0.05). Although not significant (P = 0.707), MIDLIF (13.8%) had fewer overall complications than MIS-TLIF (16.2%). Therefore, compared to MIS-TLIF, MIDLIF provides perioperative benefits while achieving the same outcomes as MIS-TLIF in terms of fusion rate, pain relief, functional improvement, and complication rate.

Advancing the design of interspinous fixation devices for improved biomechanical performance: dual vs. single-locking set screw mechanisms and symmetrical vs. asymmetrical plate designs.

Interspinous devices were introduced in the field of spine surgery as an alternative to traditional pedicle screw fixation in selected patients for treatment of spinal stenosis and fixation. These devices designs have evolved from non-fixated extension blocks to sophisticated interspinous fixation devices (IFDs). There is an absence of literature comparing the biomechanical fixation strength of different IFD plate designs and the role of set screw locking systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate fixation strengths by bench testing static disassembly and pullout strength of two dissimilar IFD designs and locking mechanisms. We hypothesized that the InSpan (InSpan LLC, Burlington, MA, USA) dual-locking symmetrically IFD plate designed will have stronger fixation than the Aspen (ZimVie, Parsippany, NJ, USA) single-locking asymmetric IFD plate design. We conducted two biomechanical bench tests to evaluate the load to failure locking characteristics of symmetrical InSpan and asymmetrical Aspen IFD designs. Static pullout testing involved locking each IFD to the stainless steel and 40 pcf cellular polyurethane foam and measuring pullout load and displacement six times. Seven InSpan and two Aspen IFDs (including the "used" IFDs from the pullout testing) underwent static disassembly tests using a pair of disassembly fixtures positioned between the IFD plates to measure disassembly force and displacement. All tests were performed under ambient conditions using an INSTRON 8874 Bi-Axial Tabletop Servohydraulic Dynamic Testing System (INSTRON, Norwood, MA, USA), and data was collected at a 0.2 mm/s displacement control rate until the test was stopped when there was a drop in the continuously increasing force against resistance (gross failure). The InSpan IFD experienced 94.81% higher resistance to pullout compared to the Aspen IFD in static pullout testing (P<0.05), owing to its notably larger footprint area of 69.8%. Gross failure for both IFD implant designs occurred at the foam block-block interface. In static disassembly testing, pristine InSpan required 60.7% higher force over pristine Aspen and 401.3% for "used" IFDs. Gross failure was characterized by the gradual distraction of the plates and material removal at the set screw contact points. Implant failure at the block-implant interface emphasized the pivotal role of teeth design and the contact surface area of the plates in ensuring stability. The dual-locking symmetrical InSpan IFD outperformed single-locking asymmetric Aspen IFD in both static disassembly and pullout bench tests. This highlights the benefits of InSpan's improved design and its potential for enhanced long-term stability in spinal fixation applications.

A 3D-CT Study of the Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Placement Parameters Based on Lumbar CT.

The cortical bone trajectory (CBT) technology is an effective substitute for traditional pedicle screw (PS) technology. However, there is still controversy about the CBT screw technology placement strategy. The objective of this study was to simulate cortical screw placement with the help of three-dimensional (3D) software, to discuss the differences in screws between genders and vertebral segments, and to explore a safer and more efficient strategy for cortical screw placement. Mimics Medical software was used to construct a 3D model of the lumbar spine, and the placement of CBT screws was simulated. The volume of each vertebral body from L1 to L5, the pedicle isthmus height (IH), the pedicle isthmus width (IW), and the sagittal vertebral distance (SAVD) were measured. The transverse distance (TD) and the longitudinal distance (LD) between the ideal starting point (SP) and the clinical SP (the intersection Q of the midline of the superior articular process and the horizontal line 1 mm below the transverse process) were measured. The cephalad angle (CA), lateral angle (LA), maximum screw diameter (MSD), maximum screw length (MSL) of each trajectory of the L1 to L5 vertebral bodies, and the percentage of the screw insertion depth (PSID) into the vertebral body were measured. Data were statistically analyzed using Student's t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey's test. Vertebral anatomical parameters and CBT screw parameters differed between males and females. Female patients had lower IH, IW, SAVD, CA, LA, MSD, and MSL than males. IH was greatest in L1 (male, 17.81 mm; female, 16.12 mm) and the smallest in L5 (male, 14.11 mm; female, 13.05 mm). IW was smallest in L1 (male, 8.89 mm; female, 7.37 mm) and greatest in L5 (male, 16.59 mm; female, 15.43 mm). The MSD of males was smallest in L1 (6.05 mm) and greatest in L3 (7.06 mm); the MSD of females was smallest in L1 (5.13 mm) and greatest in L4 (6.64 mm). MSL was greatest at L3 (male, 33.63 mm; female, 32.28 mm) and smallest at L5 (male, 31.25 mm; female, 29.97 mm). CA was smallest in L1 (male, 22.80°; female, 21.92°) and greatest in L3 (male, 25.29°; female, 24.33°). LA was smallest in L1 (male 12.37°, female 11.27°) and greatest in L5 (male 13.56°, female 12.96°). Among the males, TD was smallest at L1 (-0.51 mm) and greatest at L5 (1.37 mm), while LD was greatest at L2 (3.46 mm) and smallest at L5 (2.40 mm). In females, TD was greatest at L1 (0.12 mm) and smallest at L3 (-0.51 mm), while LD was greatest at L1 (3.69 mm) and smallest at L5 (2.08 mm). In the overall sample, the incidence of SAVD and PSID gradually increased from L1 to L5. The optimal screw placement strategy for CBT screws varies significantly according to sex and vertebral body segments, particularly noting the specificity of screw placement at L5. The optimal screw placement strategy should be selected based on the patient's sex and segment characteristics before surgery to maximize the safety and accuracy of CBT screw placement.

Biomechanical Comparison of Corticopedicular Spine Fixation versus Pedicle Screw Fixation in a Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Finite Element Analysis Model

To compare the stability of a corticopedicular posterior fixation (CPPF) device with traditional pedicle screws for decompression and fusion in adult degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Finite element analysis (FEA) was used in a validated model of grade 1 L4-L5 spondylolisthesis to compare segmental stability after laminectomy alone, laminectomy with pedicle screw fixation, or laminectomy with CPPF device fixation. A 500-N follower load was applied to the model and different functional movements were simulated by applying a 7.5-Nm force in different directions. Outcomes included degrees of motion, tensile forces experienced in the CPPF device, and stresses in surrounding cortical bone. At maximum loading, laminectomy alone demonstrated a 1° increase in flexion range of motion, from 6.35° to 7.39°. Laminectomy with pedicle screw fixation and CPPF device fixation both reduced spinal segmental motion to ≤1° at maximum loading in all ranges of motion, including flexion (0.94° and 1.09°), extension (-0.85° and -1.08°), lateral bending (-0.56° and -0.96°), and torsion (0.63° and 0.91°), respectively. There was no significant difference in segmental stability between pedicle screw fixation and CPPF device fixation during maximum loading, with a difference of ≤0.4° in any range of motion. Tensile forces in the CPPF device remained ≤51% the ultimate load to failure (487 N) and stress in surrounding cortical bone remained ≤84% the ultimate stress of cortical bone (125.4 MPa) during maximum loading. CPFF fixation demonstrated similar segmental stability to traditional pedicle screw fixation whereas tensile forces and stress in surrounding cortical bone remained below the load to failure.

Efficacy and Safety of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws versus Pedicle Screws in Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of cortical bone trajectory screws and traditional pedicle screws in lumbar fusion. MethodsRandomized controlled studies and cohort studies on CBT versus pedicle screws in lumbar fusion were searched in CBM, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. The search period spanned from the establishment of the databases to December 2023. The Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of the literature included. Clinical and imaging data as well as surgical outcomes, recovery and postoperative complications were extracted from the relevant literature. ResultsA total of 6 randomized controlled trials and 26 cohort studies were included after screening by inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 2478 patients. The meta-analysis demonstrated significant discrepancies between the CBT and TPS groups in JOA score at 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up. Moreover, the TPS group exhibited a higher ODI at final follow-up, a greater VAS for low back pain at both 1 week and final follow-up, as well as a higher VAS for leg pain at 1 month. Differences were also noted in surgical and recovery outcomes. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative complications. ConclusionsCBT and TPS have analogous safety profiles when applied to lumbar fusion, but the clinical efficacy of CBT is superior to that of TPS to some extent, and the procedure is less invasive with faster recovery.

Design and radiological confirmation of 3-column cortical bone trajectory in the lumbar spine.

The aim of this study was to design a novel lumbar cortical bone trajectory (CBT) penetrating the anterior, middle, and posterior vertebral area using imaging; measure the relevant parameters to find theoretical parameters and screw placement possibilities; and investigate the optimal implantation trajectory of the CBT in patients with osteoporosis. Three types of CBTs with appropriate lengths were selected to simulate screw placement using Mimics software. These CBTs were classified as the leading tip of the trajectory pointing to the posterior quarter area (original CBT [CBT-O]) and middle (novel CBT A [CBT-A]) and anterior quarter (novel CBT B [CBT-B]) of the superior endplate. The authors then measured the maximum screw diameter (MSD) and length (MSL), cephalad (CA) and lateral (LA) angles, and bone mineral density (Hounsfield unit [HU] values) of the planned novel 3-column CBT screw placements. The differences in the parameters of the novel CBTs, the percentages of successfully planned CBT screws, and the factors that influenced the successful planning of 3-column CBT screws were analyzed. Three-column CBT screws were successfully designed in all segments of the lumbar spine. The success rate of the 3-column CBT planned screws was 72.25% (83.25% for CBT-A and 61.25% for CBT-B). From the CBT-O type, to the CBT-A type, to the CBT-B type, the LA, CA, and MSD of the novel CBT screws decreased with increasing trajectory length. The HU values of the three types of trajectories were all significantly higher than that of the traditional pedicle screw trajectory (p < 0.001). The main factor affecting successful planning of the 3-column CBT screw was pedicle width. Moderating adjustment of the original screw parameters by reducing LAs and CAs to penetrate the anterior, middle, and posterior columns of the vertebral body using the 3-column CBT screw is feasible, especially in the lower lumbar spine.

Biomechanical analysis of a trans-discal, multi-level stabilization screw (MLSS) at the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) of long posterior thoracolumbar instrumentations

PurposeTo evaluate proximal junctional biomechanics of a MLSS relative to traditional pedicle screw fixation at the proximal extent of T10-pelvis posterior instrumentation constructs (T10-p PSF).MethodsA previously validated three-dimensional osseoligamentous spinopelvic finite element (FE) model was used to compare proximal junctional range-of-motion (ROM), vertebral body stresses, and discal biomechanics between two groups: (1) T10-p with a T10-11 MLSS (“T10-11 MLSS”) and (2) T10-p with a traditional T10 pedicle screw (“Traditional T10-PS”).ResultsThe T10-11 MLSS had a 5% decrease in T9 cortical bone stress compared to Traditional T10-PS. Conversely, the T10 and T11 bone stresses increased by 46% and 98%, respectively, with T10-11 MLSS compared to Traditional T10-PS. Annular stresses and intradiscal pressures (IDP) were similar at T9-T10 between constructs. At the T10-11 disc, T10-11 MLSS decreased annular stresses by 29% and IDP by 48% compared to Traditional T10-PS. Adjacent ROM (T8-9 & T9-10) were similar between T10-11 MLSS and Traditional T10-PS. T10-11 MLSS had 39% greater ROM at T10-11 and 23% less ROM at T11-12 compared to Traditional T10-PS.ConclusionsIn this FE analysis, a T10-11 MLSS at the proximal extent of T10-pelvis posterior instrumentation resulted in increased T10 and T11 cortical bone stresses, decreased discal annular stress and IDP and increased ROM at T10-11, and no change in ROM at the adjacent level. Given the complex and multifactorial nature of proximal junctional kyphosis, these results require additional biomechanical and clinical evaluations to determine the clinical utility of MLSS on the proximal junctions of thoracolumbar posterior instrumented fusions.

Comparison of Clinical Effects of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws and Traditional Pedicle Screws in Posterior Lumbar Fusion

To compare the clinical effects of cortical bone trajectory screws and traditional pedicle screws in posterior lumbar fusion. A retrospective study was conducted to analyze lumbar degeneration patients who underwent surgical treatment at our hospital between January 2016 and January 2019. A total of 123 patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled. The subjects were divided into two groups according to their surgical procedures and the members of the two groups were matched by age, sex, and the number of fusion segments. There were 63 patients in the traditional pedicle screws (PS) group and 60 in the cortical bone trajectory screws (CBTS) group. The outcomes of the two groups were compared. The primary outcome measures were perioperative conditions, including operation duration, estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL), and length-of-stay (LOS), visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and interbody fusion rate. The secondary outcome measures were the time to postoperative ambulation and the incidence of complications. VAS scores and ODI scores were assessed before operation, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 12 months after operation, and at the final follow-up. The interbody fusion rate was assessed in 1 year and 2 years after the operation and at the final follow-up. The CBTS group showed a reduction in operation duration ([142.8±13.1] min vs. [174.7±15.4] min, P<0.001), LOS ([9.5±1.5] d vs. [12.0±2.0] d, P<0.001), and EBL ([194.2±38.3] mL vs. [377.5±33.1] mL, P<0.001) in comparison with the PS group. The VAS score for back pain in the CBTS group was lower than that in the PS group at 1 week and 1 month after operation and the ODI score in the CBTS group was lower than that in the PS group at 1 month after operation, with the differences being statistically significant (P<0.05). At each postoperative time point, the VAS score for leg pain and the interbody fusion rate did not show significant difference between the two groups. The VAS score for back and leg pain and the ODI score at each time point after operation in both the CBTS group and the PS group were significantly lower than those before operation (P<0.05). No significant difference was found in the time to postoperative ambulation or the overall complication incidence between the two groups. The CBTS technique could significantly shorten the operation duration and LOS, reduce EBL, and achieve the same effect as the PS technique does in terms of intervertebral fusion rate, pain relief, functional improvement, and complication incidence in patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion.

Comparison of facet fusion rates and clinical outcomes between cortical bone trajectory screw and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXTCortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws have been introduced as an alternative technique for pedicle screw (PS) insertion because they have greater contact with the cortex and a greater uniaxial pullout load than traditional PS. CBT screwing can also minimize muscle dissection. However, CBT screws and traditional PSs have not yet been compared in terms of fusion rates and clinical outcomes for particular operative procedures. PURPOSEThis study aimed to assess the fusion rate and clinical outcomes of facet fusion (FF) fixed with CBT screws (CBT-FF) and to compare them with those of FF fixed with percutaneous PS (PPS-FF). STUDY DESIGNRetrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLERecords of 68 patients who underwent CBT-FF for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with at least 1 year of follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. The control group comprised 143 patients who underwent PPS-FF under the same conditions. OUTCOME MEASURESComputed tomography was performed to confirm fusion. Therapeutic effectiveness was assessed as a clinical outcome using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and visual analog scale (VAS) preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The rate of revision surgery was also calculated. Intraoperative blood loss was measured. METHODSFusion rate, clinical outcomes, revision surgery rate, and intraoperative blood loss of CBT-FF and PPS-FF were compared. RESULTSThe CBT-FF and PPS-FF fusion rates were 91.2% and 90.1%, respectively. The JOABPEQ category scores demonstrated therapeutic effectiveness in 74.5% and 77.1% of the patients for low back pain; the corresponding proportions for walking ability were 84.7% and 89.3%, respectively. No significant differences in therapeutic effectiveness were observed for any category, including the RMDQ and VAS scores for buttock and lower limb pain. Three patients required revision surgery for adjacent segment disease between 6 months and 3.5 years after CBT-FF (revision surgery rate, 4.4%), whereas the revision surgery rate for PPS-FF was 6.3% (9/143 cases). Average intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the CBT-FF group than in the PPS-FF group. CONCLUSIONSBoth procedures were equally useful in terms of fusion rate and clinical outcomes for DLS management.

Design of a new detachable pedicle screw based on medical optical imaging inspection to improve osteoporosis and enhance vertebral body revision effect

Osteoporosis is a common bone disease that often leads to difficulty in vertebrae revision. Traditional pedicle screws are often complicated to operate and have poor visibility during implantation. A new detachable pedicle screw is needed to improve the revision effect. The aim of this study was to design a new detachable pedicle screw based on medical optical imaging to improve the outcome of vertebral revision in osteoporosis, and to improve operational feasibility and visibility. In this study, the parameters related to the degree of osteoporosis were obtained by optical imaging detection of the osteoporotic vertebral body. Then a new detachable pedicle screw was designed according to the test results to improve the effect of vertebral body revision. By preparing and optimizing the material and structure of the screw, it is ensured that it has sufficient mechanical strength and stability. Finally, the visibility and operability of the improved screw during implantation were verified by medical optical imaging. Compared with traditional screws, the new detachable pedicle screw can improve the vertebral body revision in the case of osteoporosis. The optical imaging test results show that the new screw has good visibility and maneuverability, providing more accurate guidance and positioning for the vertebral body revision operation.

The Influence of Titanium-coated Poryetheretherketone Cages in Fusion Status after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw fixation (CBT-PLIF) shows potential for reducing adjacent segmental disease. Previously, our investigations revealed a relatively lower fusion rate with the use of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CP) cages in CBT-PLIF compared with traditional pedicle screw fixation (PS-PLIF) using CP cages. This study aims to evaluate whether the implementation of titanium-coated polyetheretherketone (TP) cages can enhance fusion outcomes in CBT-PLIF. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 68 consecutive patients who underwent CBT-PLIF with TP cages (TP group) and 89 patients who underwent CBT-PLIF with CP cages (CP group). Fusion status was assessed using computed tomography at 1 year postoperatively and dynamic plain radiographs at 2 years postoperatively. No statistically significant differences in fusion rates were observed at 1 and 2 years postoperatively between the TP group (86.8% and 89.7%, respectively) and the CP group (77.5% and 88.8%, respectively). Notably, the CP group exhibited a significant improvement in fusion rate from 1 to 2 years postoperatively (P= 0.002), while no significant improvement was observed in the TP group. Examination of temporal changes in fusion rates reveals that only the TP group achieved a peak fusion rate 1 year postoperatively. This implies that TP cages may enhance the fusion process even after CBT-PLIF. Nevertheless, the definitive efficacy of TP cages for CBT-PLIF remains uncertain in the context of overall fusion rates.

The articular surface technique for lumbar pedicle screw placement: a 3D feasibility study.

Traditional pedicle screws (TPSs) and cortical based trajectory pedicle screws each apply stability with fusions of the lumbar spine and have shown good success. However, the technical considerations of each technique imply complications of loosening and failure that either technique is uniquely prone to having. The current study proposes a new pedicle screw technique through the articular surface of the vertebral superior facet. It is hypothesized that this path will allow utilization of a larger screw that rivals that of the TPS technique, while also maintaining the high-density bone encountered in the cortical based trajectory technique. Retrospective review of 50 consecutive trauma patients that underwent lumbar computed tomography (CT) scans at a Level 1 Trauma Center in the age range 18-45. These scans were uploaded to Brainlab software for ideal starting point and trajectory mapping of pedicle screws coursing through each superior facet and pedicle of vertebral levels L1-S1 without cortical breach. Satisfactory pedicle screw variables consisted of a medial angle <10 degrees, screw length at least 30 mm, screw width at least 5.0 mm, and starting point measurements such as distance to the inferior articular surface and distance to the lateral articular surface. A total of 600 virtual pedicle screws were placed, in which 525 were satisfactory and measured with the above variables. The pedicle widths were shown to significantly widen with lower-level vertebra in the lumbar spine. Approximately 72% of unsuccessful pedicle screws were placed in levels L1 and L2 allowing wider pedicle screws to be placed more further down the vertebral column. The articular surface technique (AST) for pedicle screw placement is a viable alternative in lumbar spinal fusions that offers decreased soft tissue dissection. However, the technique is likely better suited for lower lumbar fusions in L3 to S1.

Posterior Spinal Screw Fixation Techniques and Trajectories: General Overview and an Analysis of How Often They Are Used

Abstract Background: There is a great variety of techniques (translaminar, transfacet, and extrapedicular screws) apart from the traditional pedicle screw in posterior spinal instrumentation. The latter technique is the most widely used around the world (except from the cervical region) since it tends to obtain very good results with a simple approach with fewer complications.Therefore, other trajectories are usually reserved for more specific cases in which the insertion of these purely pedicle screws is not possible. Objective: The objective of this study was to review and analyze the use of different techniques and trajectories of posterior spinal instrumentation by different spinal surgeons around the world. Material and Methods: We developed a survey including posterior spinal screw techniques and trajectories. In this article, we present the data resulting from 122 answers from different spinal surgeons (neuro, orthopedic surgery). Results: Despite advances in the development of new technologies such as neuronavigation (17%) and robotic (1%) available on the market, nowadays, the gold-standard technique for spinal screw insertion is the fluoroscopy-assisted freehand approach (54%). The lumbar spine is the most instrumented spinal region (31%), with a clear preference for purely transpedicular screws. Thoracic and sacroiliac areas presented a greater diversity of screw trajectories. In the cervical spine, there is a clear tendency toward the insertion of lateral mass screws (85% in the atlantoaxial region and 70% in the subaxial region), as opposed to the use of pedicular screws. This is mainly due to the complexity of this area and the risk of damaging important neurovascular structures relatively close to the pedicles. Unexpectedly, two additional techniques were presented: cortical bone trajectory for lumbar screw fixation (for osteoporotic patients) and S2-alar-iliac screw fixation (more used than iliac screws alone). Conclusions: This survey demonstrates that the most used spinal trajectory in the thoracolumbar spinal region is the traditional pedicle screw insertion. Lateral mass was the most common place to insert screws in the subaxial cervical region. The use of robotic systems can improve the position of the screws of more complex techniques. We consider that the different techniques should be known since every surgery will be adapted to the patient’s anatomy and needs.

43. The cortical trajectory fixation vs traditional pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis: a prospective randomized controlled trail

43. The cortical trajectory fixation vs traditional pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis: a prospective randomized controlled trail

Comparing Cortical Bone Trajectory and Traditional Pedicle Screws in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study of One-Year Outcomes.

This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at a single institution. The objective of this study was to compare the long-term results associated with cortical bone trajectory (CBT) and traditional pedicle screw (TPS) via posterolateral approach in TLIF. Consecutive patients treated from November 2014 to March 2019 were included in the CBT TLIF group, while consecutive patients treated from October 2010 to August 2017 were included in the TPS TLIF group. Inclusion criteria comprised single-level or two-level TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis and at least one year of clinical and radiographic follow-up. Variables of interest included pertinent preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data. Non-parametric evaluation was performed using the Wilcoxon test. Fisher's exact test was used to assess group differences for nominal data. Overall, 140 patients met the inclusion criteria; 69 patients had CBT instrumentation (mean follow-up 526 days) and 71 patients underwent instrumentation placement via TPS (mean follow-up 825 days). Examination of perioperative and postoperative outcomes demonstrate comparable results between the groups with perioperative complications, length of stay, discharge destination, surgical revision rate, and fusion rates all being similar between groups (p = 0.1; p = 0.53; p = 0.091; p = 0.61; p = 0.665, respectively). CBT in the setting of TLIF offer equivalent outcomes to TPS with TLIF at both short- and long-term intervals of care.

Safety of robotic-assisted screw placement for spine surgery: Experience from the initial 125 cases

BackgroundThe present study aimed to evaluate the safety of robot-assisted screw placement in 125 cases after introducing a spinal robotics system and to identify the situations where deviation was likely to occur. MethodsThe subjects were 125 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted screw placement using a spinal robotics system (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic) from April 2021 to January 2023. The 1048 screws placed with robotic assistance were evaluated. We investigated intraoperative adverse events of the robotics system and complications occurring within 30 days after surgery. We evaluated screw accuracy and deviation and compared them for vertebral levels, screw insertion methods (open traditional pedicle screw [Open-PS], cortical bone trajectory screw [CBT], percutaneous pedicle screw [PPS], and S2 alar iliac screw [S2AIS]), diagnosis, and phases of surgical cases. ResultsThe deviation rate of robotic-assisted screw placement for spine surgery was 2.2%. Complications were reoperation due to implant-related neurological deficit in 0.8% and surgical site infection in 0.8%. There was significant difference in the deviation rate between vertebral levels. The deviation rate of the T1–T4 level was high at 10.0%. There was significant difference in the deviation rate between Open-PS, CBT, PPS, and S2AIS. The PPSs had a high deviation rate of 10.3%. The deviation rates were not significantly different between patients with and without deformity. The deviation rate did not change depending on the experience of surgical cases, and the deviation rate was favorable from the onset. ConclusionAlthough the robotic-assisted screw placement was safe, we should be extra vigilant when placing screws in the upper thoracic region (deviation rate 10.0%) and when using PPSs (deviation rate 10.3%).

Let's think beyond the pedicle: A biomechanical study of a new conceptual extra pedicular screw and hook construct

BackgroundTranspedicular screws have proven the test of time, yet they are not devoid of complications. Many newer techniques such as 2 D and 3D fluoroscopy,O arm Navigation assisted surgery, robotic assisted surgery have come into existence to the increase precision in pedicle screw insertion. But, complications do occur in their presence. We propose an Extra pedicular screw and hook system (EPSH) system with similar biomechanical property, better safety profile and short learning curve compared to traditional pedicle screw. PurposeTo Compare the pull out strength of Traditional Pedicle screw Vs Extra pedicular screw and hook system(EPSH). MethodsBiomechanical testing was conducted according ASTM F543 guidelines to compare the pull-out strength of EPSH based construct and traditional pedicle screw construct. Six saw bone samples in each group considered. Screw of 5.5 mm diameter and length of 35 mm was used in both the groups. Pull out strength assessed by giving 5 mm/min axial load. The axial load Vs displacement of the screw were recorded and plotted. The maximum load required for screw failure is noted in both the group. Statistical analysis was done. ResultsThe mean peak load of pedicle screw group was found to be 1670.9 ± 393.2 N with mean displacement at peak load was found to be 13.44 ± 1.7 mm and in EPSH group it was 1416.4 ± 341.4 N and 15.78 ± 3.9 mm respectively. A paired t-test showed no statistical difference(p < 0.05) between 2 groups. ConclusionEPSH has shown to have almost similar biomechanical property as that pedicle screw construct. With Addition of the hook, it provides an extra rotational stability as well. Being an extra-pedicular screw it has high safety profile and needs less expertise for insertion.

Midline lumbar interbody fusion: a review of the surgical technique and outcomes.

Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MidLIF) is a mini-open posterior interbody fusion technique defined by a cortical screw trajectory wherein screws are placed from a more medial to lateral trajectory compared with traditional pedicle screws. This enables the surgeon to perform a smaller muscle dissection with the benefits of improved blood loss, less muscle retraction, decreased operative time, shorter length of stay, and improved back pain outcomes compared with the traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques utilizing pedicle screw fixation. Importantly, MidLIF offers comparable clinical outcomes and radiographic outcomes to other posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques. In the current review, the authors aimed to educate readers about the MidLIF surgical technique, as well as surgical, clinical, radiographic, cost effectiveness, and biomechanical outcomes, when compared with both open and minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques with pedicle screw fixation. Readers will be able to utilize this information to determine how the MidLIF procedure compares as an alternative to traditional techniques.

The effect of the cortical bone trajectory screw fixation and traditional pedicle screw fixation on surgical site wound infection in posterior lumbar fusion wound: A meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis investigation was performed to measure the influence of cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (CBTSF) and traditional pedicle screw fixation (TPSF) on surgical site wound infection (SSWI) in posterior lumbar fusion (PLF). A comprehensive literature inspection till February 2023 was applied and 1657 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 13 chosen investigations enclosed 1195 individuals with PLF in the chosen investigations' starting point, 578 of them were using CBTSF, and 617 were using TPSF. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilised to compute the value of the effect of the CBTSF and TPSF on SSWI in PLF by the dichotomous approaches and a fixed or random model. No significant difference was found between individuals using CBTSF and TPSF in SSWI (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.35-1.33, P = .26), superficial SSWI (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.22-1.79, P = .38), and deep SSWI (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.06-1.50, P = .14) in PLF. No significant difference was found between individuals using CBTSF and TPSF in SSWI, superficial SSWI, and deep SSWI in PLF. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the small sample sizes of several chosen investigations for this meta-analysis and the low number of selected investigations for a certain type of SSWI.

Biomechanical comparative study of midline cortical vs. traditional pedicle screw trajectory in osteoporotic bone

IntroductionIn lumbar spinal stabilization pedicle screws are used as standard. However, especially in osteoporosis, screw anchorage is a problem. Cortical bone trajectory (CBT) is an alternative technique designed to increase stability without the use of cement. In this regard, comparative studies showed biomechanical superiority of the MC (midline cortical bone trajectory) technique with longer cortical progression over the CBT technique. The aim of this biomechanical study was to comparatively investigate the MC technique against the not cemented pedicle screws (TT) in terms of their pullout forces and anchorage properties during sagittal cyclic loading according to the ASTM F1717 test.MethodsFive cadavers (L1 to L5), whose mean age was 83.3 ± 9.9 years and mean T Score of -3.92 ± 0.38, were dissected and the vertebral bodies embedded in polyurethane casting resin. Then, one screw was randomly inserted into each vertebra using a template according to the MC technique and a second one was inserted by freehand technique with traditional trajectory (TT). The screws were quasi-static extracted from vertebrae L1 and L3, while for L2, L4 and L5 they were first tested dynamically according to ASTM standard F1717 (10,000 cycles at 1 Hz between 10 and 110 N) and then quasi-static extracted. In order to determine possible screw loosening, there movements were recorded during the dynamic tests using an optical measurement system.ResultsThe pull-out tests show a higher pull-out strength for the MC technique of 555.4 ± 237.0 N compared to the TT technique 448.8 ± 303.2 N. During the dynamic tests (L2, L4, L5), 8 out of the 15 TT screws became loose before completing 10,000 cycles. In contrast, all 15 MC screws did not exceed the termination criterion and were thus able to complete the full test procedure. For the runners, the optical measurement showed greater relative movement of the TT variant compared to the MC variant. The pull-out tests also revealed that the MC variant had a higher pull-out strength, measuring at766.7 ± 385.4 N, while the TT variant measured 637.4 ± 435.6 N.ConclusionThe highest pullout forces were achieved by the MC technique. The main difference between the techniques was observed in the dynamic measurements, where the MC technique exhibited superior primary stability compared to the conventional technique in terms of primary stability. Overall, the MC technique in combination with template-guided insertion represents the best alternative for anchoring screws in osteoporotic bone without cement.