经皮内、外螺钉置入的钻导与螺钉导板 3D 打印技术比较

A Comparison of Drill Guiding and Screw Guiding 3D-Printing Techniques for Intra- and Extrapedicular Screw Insertion.

机构信息

University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Neurosurgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.

University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Orthopedics, Groningen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 May 15;47(10):E434-E441. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004147. Epub 2021 Jun 15.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Screw randomized cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D)-printed drill guides versus additional screw guiding techniques for challenging intra- and extrapedicular screw trajectories.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Pedicle screw placement can be technically demanding, especially in syndromic scoliosis with limited bone stock. Recently, 3D-printing and virtual planning technology have become available as new tools to improve pedicle screw insertion. Differences in techniques exist, while some focus on guiding the drill, others also actively guide subsequent screws insertion. The accuracy of various 3D-printing-assisted techniques has been studied; however, direct comparative studies have yet to determine whether there is a benefit of additional screw guidance.

METHODS

Two cadaveric experiments were conducted to compare drill guides with two techniques that introduce additional screw guiding. The screw guiding consisted of either k-wire cannulated screws or modular guides, which were designed to guide the screw in addition to the drill bit. Screws were inserted intra- or extrapedicular using one of each methods according to a randomization scheme. Postoperative computed tomography scanning was performed and fused with the preoperative planning for detailed 3D screw deviation analysis.

RESULTS

For intrapedicular screw trajectories malpositioning was low (2%) and the modular guides revealed a statistically significant increase of accuracy (P  = 0.05) compared with drill guides. All techniques showed accurate cervical screw insertion without breach. For the extrapedicular screw trajectories both additional screw guiding methods did not significantly (P = 0.09) improve accuracy and malpositioning rates remained high (24%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cadaveric study it was found that the additional screw-guiding techniques are not superior to the regular 3D-printed drill guides for the technically demanding extrapedicular screw technique. For intrapedicular screw insertion, modular guides can improve insertion; however, at cervical levels regular 3D-printed drill guides already demonstrated very high accuracy and therefore there is no benefit from additional screw guiding techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

摘要

研究设计

螺钉随机尸体研究。

目的

比较三维(3D)打印钻头导向器与其他附加螺钉导向技术在挑战性的椎弓根内和椎弓根外螺钉轨迹中的准确性。

背景数据概要

椎弓根螺钉放置技术要求高,尤其是在骨量有限的综合征性脊柱侧凸中。最近,3D 打印和虚拟规划技术已成为改善椎弓根螺钉插入的新工具。技术之间存在差异,有些技术侧重于引导钻头,而其他技术则主动引导后续螺钉插入。已经研究了各种 3D 打印辅助技术的准确性;然而,直接比较研究尚未确定是否有额外螺钉引导的益处。

方法

进行了两项尸体实验,比较了钻头导向器与两种引入额外螺钉导向的技术。螺钉导向包括克氏针套管螺钉或模块导向器,其设计目的是在钻头之外引导螺钉。根据随机方案,使用每种方法中的一种,分别进行椎弓根内或椎弓根外螺钉插入。术后行计算机断层扫描,并与术前计划融合进行详细的 3D 螺钉偏差分析。

结果

对于椎弓根内螺钉轨迹,错位率较低(2%),与钻头导向器相比,模块导向器具有统计学上显著的准确性提高(P=0.05)。所有技术均显示出准确的颈椎螺钉插入,无突破。对于椎弓根外螺钉轨迹,两种附加螺钉导向方法均未显著(P=0.09)提高准确性,且错位率仍较高(24%)。

结论

在这项尸体研究中发现,对于技术要求较高的椎弓根外螺钉技术,附加螺钉导向技术并不优于常规的 3D 打印钻头导向器。对于椎弓根内螺钉插入,模块导向器可以改善插入;然而,在颈椎水平,常规的 3D 打印钻头导向器已经显示出非常高的准确性,因此,附加螺钉导向技术没有益处。

证据水平

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索