Matsukawa Keitaro, Kaito Takashi, Abe Yuichiro
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Hospital Organization, Murayama Medical Center, Musashimurayama, Japan.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan.
Global Spine J. 2024 Jun;14(5):1464-1471. doi: 10.1177/21925682221143333. Epub 2022 Nov 30.
Non-randomized prospective controlled study.
To compare the safety and perioperative outcomes between patient-specific template-guided and fluoroscopic-assisted freehand techniques in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using cortical bone trajectory (CBT).
The subjects consisted of 94 consecutive patients who underwent single-level TLIF using CBT. The standard trajectory was set so as to start from the pars interarticularis, pass the inferior border of the pedicle, and end around the middle of the vertebral endplate. Template guide technique was performed in 66 patients (Guide group), and fluoroscopic-assisted freehand technique was performed in 28 patients (Freehand group). Intraoperative parameters, screw placement accuracy, and complications were compared between the two techniques.
The Guide group had significantly shorter operative and radiation exposure times than the Freehand group (operative time 84.6 ± 16.7 vs 93.0 ± 15.0 minutes; = .023, radiation exposure time 7.0 ± 6.0 vs 20.4 ± 11.8 seconds; < .001, respectively). The screw diameter and the screw insertion depth in the vertebra in the Guide group were significantly greater than those in the Freehand group. The degree and incidence of facet joint violation were comparable between the two groups, while the accuracy of screw placement was significantly different, with no perforation rate of 97.7% in the Guide group vs 82.1% in the Freehand group ( < .001). No significant difference was found in the rate of clinically relevant complications between the two groups.
The template-guided technique provided a safe and highly accurate option for CBT screw placement.
非随机前瞻性对照研究。
比较在采用皮质骨轨迹(CBT)的经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)中,患者特异性模板引导技术与透视辅助徒手技术在安全性和围手术期结果方面的差异。
研究对象为94例连续接受单节段CBT TLIF手术的患者。标准轨迹设定为从关节突间部起始,经过椎弓根下边界,并在椎体终板中部左右结束。66例患者采用模板引导技术(引导组),28例患者采用透视辅助徒手技术(徒手组)。比较两种技术的术中参数、螺钉置入准确性及并发症情况。
引导组的手术时间和辐射暴露时间显著短于徒手组(手术时间84.6±16.7对93.0±15.0分钟;P = 0.023,辐射暴露时间7.0±6.0对20.4±11.8秒;P < 0.001)。引导组椎体的螺钉直径和螺钉置入深度显著大于徒手组。两组间小关节侵犯的程度和发生率相当,但螺钉置入准确性有显著差异,引导组无穿孔率为97.7%,徒手组为82.1%(P < 0.001)。两组间临床相关并发症发生率无显著差异。
模板引导技术为CBT螺钉置入提供了一种安全且高度准确的选择。