Morello Alberto, Colonna Stefano, Carbone Francesco, Balagna Alberto, Leone Augusto, Da Rin Vidal Tommaso, Ceroni Luca, Chatelain Leonard, Khalifé Marc, von Schilling Andrej, Marengo Nicola, Ajello Marco, Ferrero Emmanuelle, Guigui Pierre, Spetzger Uwe, Garbossa Diego, Cofano Fabio
Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini", "Città Della Salute e Della Scienza" University Hospital, University of Turin, Italy.
Department of Neurosurgery, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Global Spine J. 2025 Aug 4:21925682251366645. doi: 10.1177/21925682251366645.
Study DesignRetrospective comparative study.ObjectiveThis multicenter European study aimed to compare the accuracy, complication rates, and incidence of revision surgery associated with three distinct cervical pedicle screw (CPS) insertion techniques: freehand, navigation-assisted (Loop-X/O-arm), and patient-specific 3D-template guided approaches. The primary endpoint was to provide evidence to support decision-making in cervical spine instrumentation.MethodsA retrospective, observational study analyzed prospectively collected data from 97 adult patients who underwent posterior cervical fusion with CPS between January 2019 and August 2024. Screw accuracy was assessed using intraoperative or postoperative CT scans, according to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were systematically evaluated.ResultsA total of 369 CPS were implanted, with an overall accuracy (Grade A/B) of 90.7%. Patient-specific 3D-templates yielded the highest accuracy (97.7% of grade A/B screws), significantly superior to navigation-assisted (85.5%) and freehand (80.0%) techniques ( < .001). The lowest accuracy was observed at the C2 level (79.4%; < .001). Patients over 60 years of age undergoing surgery at the C2 level had a 4.7-fold increased likelihood of suboptimal (Grade > B) screw placement ( = .016). The overall rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications was significantly higher in the freehand and navigation-assisted groups ( < .05).ConclusionCPSs are safe and effective for cervical fusion, with acceptable complication rates. Patient-specific 3D templates offer superior accuracy and fewer complications, but its applicability is limited in urgent cases. Navigation provides good accuracy, but is associated with higher costs and potential technical inconveniences. Technique selection should consider surgeon expertise, resources, and patient-specific factors.
研究设计
回顾性比较研究。
目的
这项多中心欧洲研究旨在比较三种不同的颈椎椎弓根螺钉(CPS)置入技术:徒手置入、导航辅助(Loop-X/O臂)和患者特异性3D模板引导方法在准确性、并发症发生率及翻修手术发生率方面的差异。主要终点是为颈椎脊柱内固定的决策提供证据支持。
方法
一项回顾性观察性研究分析了2019年1月至2024年8月期间97例接受CPS后路颈椎融合术的成年患者的前瞻性收集数据。根据Gertzbein-Robbins分类法,使用术中或术后CT扫描评估螺钉准确性。系统评估术中及术后并发症。
结果
共植入369枚CPS,总体准确率(A/B级)为90.7%。患者特异性3D模板的准确率最高(97.7%的A级/B级螺钉),显著优于导航辅助技术(85.5%)和徒手技术(80.0%)(P <.001)。C2水平的准确率最低(79.4%;P <.001)。60岁以上患者在C2水平接受手术时,螺钉置入欠佳(>B级)的可能性增加4.7倍(P =.016)。徒手组和导航辅助组的术中及术后总体并发症发生率显著更高(P <.05)。
结论
CPS用于颈椎融合术安全有效,并发症发生率可接受。患者特异性3D模板具有更高的准确性和更少的并发症,但在紧急情况下其适用性有限。导航提供了良好的准确性,但成本较高且存在潜在的技术不便。技术选择应考虑外科医生的专业技能、资源及患者特异性因素。