Gierse Jula, Mandelka Eric, Medrow Antonia, Bullert Benno, Gruetzner Paul A, Franke Jochen, Vetter Sven Y
Research Group Medical Imaging and Navigation in Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery (MINTOS), Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, BG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Heidelberg University, Grabengasse 1, 69117, Heidelberg, Germany.
Eur Spine J. 2024 Jun;33(6):2304-2313. doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08232-7. Epub 2024 Apr 18.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Studies have shown biomechanical superiority of cervical pedicle screw placement over other techniques. However, accurate placement is challenging due to the inherent risk of neurovascular complications. Navigation technology based on intraoperative 3D imaging allows highly accurate screw placement, yet studies specifically investigating screw placement in patients with traumatic atlantoaxial injuries are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare atlantoaxial screw placement as treatment of traumatic instabilities using iCT-based navigation or fluoroscopic-guidance with intraoperative 3D control scans. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients with traumatic atlantoaxial injuries treated operatively with dorsal stabilization of C1 and C2. Patients were either assigned to the intraoperative navigation or fluoroscopic-guidance group. Screw accuracy, procedure time, and revisions were compared. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included in this study with 51 patients in the navigation group and 27 patients in the fluoroscopic-guidance group. In total, 312 screws were placed in C1 and C2. Screw accuracy was high in both groups; however, pedicle perforations > 1 mm occurred significantly more often in the fluoroscopic-guidance group (P = 0.02). Procedure time was on average 23 min shorter in the navigation group (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to the available data showing that navigated atlantoaxial screw placement proves to be feasible as well as highly accurate compared to the fluoroscopic-guidance technique without prolonging the time needed for surgery. When comparing these data with other studies, the application of different classification systems for assessment of screw accuracy should be considered.
背景:研究表明,颈椎椎弓根螺钉置入术在生物力学方面优于其他技术。然而,由于存在神经血管并发症的固有风险,精确置入具有挑战性。基于术中三维成像的导航技术可实现高度精确的螺钉置入,但专门针对创伤性寰枢椎损伤患者螺钉置入的研究较少。本研究的目的是比较使用基于术中CT的导航或透视引导并结合术中三维对照扫描进行寰枢椎螺钉置入治疗创伤性不稳定的情况。 方法:这是一项对接受C1和C2后路稳定手术治疗的创伤性寰枢椎损伤患者的回顾性研究。患者被分为术中导航组或透视引导组。比较螺钉置入的准确性、手术时间和翻修情况。 结果:本研究共纳入78例患者,其中导航组51例,透视引导组27例。C1和C2共置入312枚螺钉。两组螺钉置入的准确性均较高;然而,透视引导组椎弓根穿孔>1mm的发生率明显更高(P = 0.02)。导航组的平均手术时间短23分钟(P = 0.02)。 结论:本研究补充了现有数据,表明与透视引导技术相比,导航下寰枢椎螺钉置入术被证明是可行且高度精确的,且不会延长手术所需时间。在将这些数据与其他研究进行比较时,应考虑应用不同的分类系统来评估螺钉置入的准确性。
Surg Neurol. 2009-12
J Neurosurg Spine. 2013-12-20
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021-4-15
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015-4-1
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022-3-15
World Neurosurg. 2022-4
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020-7-20
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020-2