Assessment of two entry points for S2 alar-iliac screw in a Japanese cohort using three-dimensional computed tomography scan.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbosacral fusion supplemented with sacropelvic fusion has recently been increasingly employed for correcting spinal deformity and is associated with lower incidence of pseudarthrosis and implant failure. To date, few studies have evaluated anatomical parameters and technical feasibility between different entry points for S2 alar-iliac screws.

PURPOSE

To compare anatomical parameters and technical feasibility of two entry points for the S2 alar-iliac screw (S2AIS) in a Japanese cohort using three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT).

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Fifteen men and 15 women aged 50-79 years who underwent pelvic CT at our hospital in 2013.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Screw length, lateral angulation, caudal angulation, angle range, distance from the entry point to the sacroiliac joint, distance from the S2AIS to the acetabular roof, distance from the S2AIS to the sciatic notch, and insertion difficulty.

METHODS

We used 30 pelvic CT images (15 men and 15 women). We selected two entry points from previous studies: one was 1 mm distal and 1 mm lateral to the S1 dorsal foramen (A group) and the other was the midpoint between the S1 and S2 dorsal foramen (B group). We resliced the plane in which the pelvis was sectioned obliquely from these entry points to the anterior inferior iliac spine in the sagittal plane. We placed the shortest and longest virtual S2AISs bilaterally in this plane using a 4-mm margin. We measured screw length, lateral angulation, caudal angulation, angle range, distance from the entry point to the sacroiliac joint, distance from the S2AIS to the acetabular roof, distance from the S2AIS to the sciatic notch, and insertion difficulty. These measurements were compared between Groups A and B.

RESULTS

In group A, the angle in the sagittal plane was significantly smaller and the distance from the entry point to the sciatic notch was significantly longer than in group B. Group B demonstrated a significantly longer screw length, longer distance from the entry point to the sacroiliac joint, and longer distance from the entry point to the acetabular roof than group A. The rate of insertion difficulty of S2AIS was much higher in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Insertion of S2AIS from the midpoint between the S1 and S2 dorsal foramen compared with the entry at distal and lateral to S1 foramen enables insertion of longer screws with low insertion difficulty.