Comparison of clinical effectiveness of fenestrated and conventional pedicle screws in patients undergoing spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Pedicle screws are commonly used for spinal procedures for fusion stability, which is particularly important in osteoporotic patients, who are at an increased risk of requiring revision procedures.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare clinical effectiveness of conventional pedicle screws (CPS) vs fenestrated pedicle screws (FPS) in patients undergoing spinal surgery. Primary outcomes included screw loosening, revision surgeries (involving an implant) and reoperations (not involving intervention on an implant) in patients treated with CPS vs FPS, sub-stratified by with and without osteoporosis. Secondary outcomes included changes in pain scores. Forty-eight studies with 8,302 patients were included, with 1,565 (19.18%) treated with FPS and 6,710 (80.82%) treated with CPS. FPS was associated with a lower risk of screw loosening (p = 0.001) vs CPS. In the general population, there was a non-significant trend of lower revision rate, but no difference in reoperation rate, between patients treated with FPS vs CPS. In osteoporotic patients, revision rates were significantly lower for FPS vs CPS (p 0.009).

EXPERT OPINION

This review suggests that FPS are effective for surgical fixation and reduce rates of screw loosening, and in osteoporotic patients, revision surgeries, compared to CPS.