European Spine Journal

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 846–859 | Cite as

Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

  • Nai-Feng Tian
  • Qi-Shan Huang
  • Ping Zhou
  • Yang Zhou
  • Rui-Kai Wu
  • Yi Lou
  • Hua-Zi Xu
Review Article


Studies revealed that navigation systems that provided intraoperative assistance might improve pedicle screw insertion accuracy, and also implied that different systems provided different pedicle screw insertion accuracy. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to focus on the pedicle screw insertion accuracy with or without the assistance of image-guided system, and the variance among the different navigation systems. Comparative studies were searched on pedicle screw insertion accuracy between conventional and navigated method, and among different navigation systems. A total of 43 papers, including 28 clinical, 14 cadaveric and 1 model studies, were included in the current study. For clinical articles, there were 3 randomized clinical trials, 4 prospective comparative studies and 21 retrospective comparative studies. The incidence of pedicle violation among computer tomography-based navigation method group was statistically significantly less than that observed among the conventional group (OR 95% CI, in vivo: 0.32–0.60; in vitro: 0.24–0.75 P < 0.01). Two-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation system (OR 95% CI, in vivo: 0.27–0.48; in vitro: 0.43–0.88 P < 0.01) and three-dimension fluoroscopy-based navigation system (OR 95% CI, in vivo: 0.09–0.38; in vitro: 0.09–0.36 P < 0.01) also obtained significant reduced screw deviation rate over traditional methods. Between navigated approaches, statistically insignificant individual and pooled RR values were observed for all in vivo subgroups. Pooled estimate of in vitro studies show that computer tomography-based and three-dimension fluoroscopy-based navigation system provided more accurate pedicle screw insertion over two-dimension fluoroscopy-based navigation system. Our review showed that navigation provided a higher accuracy in the placement of pedicle screws compared with conventional methods. The superiority of navigation systems was obvious when they were applied to abnormal spinal structure. Although no strong in vivo evidence has detected significantly different pedicle screw placement accuracy among the three major navigation systems, meta-analysis revealed the variance in pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different navigation methods.


Navigated spine surgery Pedicle screw Computer tomography Fluoroscopy Accuracy 


Conflict of interest

None of the authors received financial support for this study.


  1. 1.
    Harrington PR, Tullos HS (1969) Reduction of severe spondylolisthesis in children. South Med J 62:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xu R, Zhao L, Chai B et al (2009) Lateral radiological evaluation of transarticular screw placement in the lower cervical spine. Eur Spine J 18:392–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayley E, Zia Z, Kerslake R et al (2010) Lamina-guided lateral mass screw placement in the sub-axial cervical spine. Eur Spine J 19:660–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Husted DS, Yue JJ, Fairchild TA et al (2003) An extrapedicular approach to the placement of screws in the thoracic spine: an anatomic and radiographic assessment. Spine 28:2324–2330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tian NF, Xu HZ, Wang XY et al (2010) Morphometric comparisons between the pedicle and the pedicle rib unit in the immature Chinese thoracic spine: a computed tomographic assessment. Spine 35:1514–1519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lo YL, Dan YF, Teo A et al (2008) The value of bilateral ipsilateral and contralateral motor evoked potential monitoring in scoliosis surgery. Eur Spine J 17:S236–S238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sutter M, Eggspuehler A, Grob D et al (2007) The diagnostic value of multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during spine surgery: a prospective study of 1,017 patients. Eur Spine J 16:S162–S170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kosmopoulos V, Schizas C (2007) Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine 32:E111–E120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tian NF, Xu HZ (2009) Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop 33:895–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nakanishi K, Tanaka M, Misawa H et al (2009) Usefulness of a navigation system in surgery for scoliosis: segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129:1211–1218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arand M, Schempf M, Fleiter T et al (2006) Qualitative and quantitative accuracy of CAOS in a standardized in vitro spine model. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:118–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fu TS, Wong CB, Tsai TT et al (2008) Pedicle screw insertion: computed tomography versus fluoroscopic image guidance. Int Orthop 32:517–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee GY, Massicotte EM, Rampersaud YR (2007) Clinical accuracy of cervicothoracic pedicle screw placement: a comparison of the “open” lamino-foraminotomy and computer-assisted techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:25–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lekovic GP, Potts EA, Karahalios DG et al (2007) A comparison of two techniques in image-guided thoracic pedicle screw placement: a retrospective study of 37 patients and 277 pedicle screws. J Neurosurg Spine 7:393–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gruetzner PA, Waelti H, Vock B et al (2004) Navigation using fluoro-CT technology, concept and clinical experience in a new method for intraoperative navigation. Eur J Trauma 30:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nottmeier EW, Seemer W, Young PM (2009) Placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws using three-dimensional image guidance: experience in a large patient cohort. J Neurosurg Spine 10:33–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Merloz P, Troccaz J, Vouaillat H et al (2007) Fluoroscopy-based navigation system in spine surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 221:813–820Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rajasekaran S, Vidyadhara S, Ramesh P et al (2007) Randomized clinical study to compare the accuracy of navigated and non-navigated thoracic pedicle screws in deformity correction surgeries. Spine 32:E56–E64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Amiot LP, Lang K, Putzier M et al (2000) Comparative results between conventional and computer-assisted pedicle screw installation in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. Spine 25:606–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ito H, Neo M, Yoshida M et al (2007) Efficacy of computer-assisted pedicle screw insertion for cervical instability in RA patients. Rheumatol Int 27:567–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M et al (2007) Accuracy analysis of pedicle screw placement in posterior scoliosis surgery: comparison between conventional fluoroscopic and computer-assisted technique. Spine 32:1543–1550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laine T, Schlenzka D, Mäkitalo K et al (1997) Improved accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with computer-assisted surgery. A prospective clinical trial of 30 patients. Spine 22:1254–1258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laine T, Lund T, Ylikoski M et al (2000) Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with and without computer assistance: a randomised controlled clinical study in 100 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J 9:235–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Merloz P, Tonetti J, Pittet L et al (1998) Pedicle screw placement using image guided techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res 354:39–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Richter M, Cakir B, Schmidt R (2005) Cervical pedicle screws: conventional versus computer-assisted placement of cannulated screws. Spine 30:2280–2287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sakai Y, Matsuyama Y, Nakamura H et al (2008) Segmental pedicle screwing for idiopathic scoliosis using computer-assisted surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:181–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Arand M, Hartwig E, Hebold D et al (2001) Precision analysis of navigation-assisted implanted thoracic and lumbar pedicled screws. A prospective clinical study. Unfallchirurg 104:1076–1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schnake KJ, König B, Berth U et al (2004) Accuracy of CT-based navigation of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine compared with conventional technique. Unfallchirurg 107:104–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Seller K, Wild A, Urselmann L et al (2005) Prospective screw misplacement analysis after conventional and navigated pedicle screw implantation. Biomed Tech (Berl) 50:287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huang Y, Kong R, Fang SY et al (2009) Comparison study between C-arm X-ray and 3D CT in guiding thoracolumbar pedicle screw fixation. Shandong Med J (Chin) 49:5–7Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li Y (2007) The study of clinical anatomy of cervical pedicle with Iso-C arm and clinical application of Iso-C navigation system. Master’s Thesis, Shandong University (Chin) (5)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu YJ, Tian W, Liu B et al (2005) Accuracy of CT-based navigation of pedicle screws implantation in the cervical spine compared with X-ray fluoroscopy technique. Chin J Surg (Chin) 43:1328–1330Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yang YH, Ye H, Zheng J et al (2005) Application of orthopaedic guidance for pedicle screw fixation of spine. Orthop J Chin (Chin) 13:75–76Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xu L, Yu X, Zheng DB et al (2004) Preliminary application of spinal navigation with the intra-operative 3D-imaging modality in pedicle screw fixation. Orthop J Chin (Chin) 12:1895–1897Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yang LL, Chen HJ, Chen DY et al (2007) Clinical applications of computer assisted navigation technique in scoliosis surgery. Orthop J Chin (Chin) 15:1773–1776Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang DS, Yuan JT, Zheng J et al (2008) Pedicle screw placement under the guidance of computer-assisted navigation system. Chin J Min Inv Surg (Chin) 8:544–546Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li SG, Sheng L, Zhao H et al (2009) Computer-assisted navigation technique in the spinal pedicle screw internal fixation. J Clin Rehabil Tissue Eng Res (Chin) 13:3365–3369Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tian W, Liu B, Li Q et al (2003) Experience of pedicle screw fixation in the cervical spine using navigation system. J Spinal Surg (Chin) 1:15–18Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Austin MS, Vaccaro AR, Brislin B et al (2002) Image-guided spine surgery: a cadaver study comparing conventional open laminoforaminotomy and two image-guided techniques for pedicle screw placement in posterolateral fusion and nonfusion models. Spine 27:2503–2508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Choi WW, Green BA, Levi AD (2000) Computer-assisted fluoroscopic targeting system for pedicle screw insertion. Neurosurgery 47:872–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mirza SK, Wiggins GC, Kuntz C et al (2003) Accuracy of thoracic vertebral body screw placement using standard fluoroscopy, fluoroscopic image guidance, and computed tomographic image guidance: a cadaver study. Spine 28:402–413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sagi HC, Manos R, Park SC et al (2003) Electromagnetic field-based image-guided spine surgery part two: results of a cadaveric study evaluating thoracic pedicle screw placement. Spine 28:E351–E354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sagi HC, Manos R, Benz R et al (2003) Electromagnetic field-based image-guided spine surgery part one: results of a cadaveric study evaluating lumbar pedicle screw placement. Spine 28:2013–2018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Assaker R, Reyns N, Vinchon M et al (2001) Transpedicular screw placement: image-guided versus lateral-view fluoroscopy: in vitro simulation. Spine 26:2160–2164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hart RA, Hansen BL, Shea M et al (2005) Pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine: a comparison of image-guided and manual techniques in cadavers. Spine 30:E326–E331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    John PS, James C, Antony J et al (2007) A novel computer-assisted technique for pedicle screw insertion. Int J Med Robot 3:59–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ludwig SC, Kramer DL, Balderston RA et al (2000) Placement of pedicle screws in the human cadaveric cervical spine: comparative accuracy of three techniques. Spine 25:1655–1667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ludwig SC, Kowalski JM, Edwards CC et al (2000) Cervical pedicle screws: comparative accuracy of two insertion techniques. Spine 25:2675–2681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tian W, Liu YJ, Liu B et al (2006) Experimental study and clinical applications of computer assisted navigation technique in spinal surgery. Chin J Orthop (Chin) 26:671–675Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    He XS, Yang HL, Zhu RF et al (2008) Study on pedicle screw fixation of cervical spine assisted CT-based navigation system compared with the individual cervical peddle screws placement technique. Suzhou Univ J Med Sci (Chin) 28:415–417Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Xia Q, Yan SJ, Chen TY et al (2007) Application of computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation based on the C-arm X-ray in pedicle screw fixation. Fudan Univ J Med Sci (Chin) 34:873–876Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lim MR, Girardi FP, Yoon SC et al (2005) Accuracy of computerized frameless stereotactic image-guided pedicle screw placement into previously fused lumbar spines. Spine 30:1793–1798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rampersaud YR, Lee KS (2007) Fluoroscopic computer-assisted pedicle screw placement through a mature fusion mass: an assessment of 24 consecutive cases with independent analysis of computed tomography and clinical data. Spine 32:217–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    von Jako RA, Carrino JA, Yonemura KS et al (2009) Electromagnetic navigation for percutaneous guide-wire insertion: accuracy and efficiency compared to conventional fluoroscopic guidance. Neuroimage 47:T127–T132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nakashima H, Sato K, Ando T et al (2009) Comparison of the percutaneous screw placement precision of isocentric C-arm 3-dimensional fluoroscopy-navigated pedicle screw implantation and conventional fluoroscopy method with minimally invasive surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:468–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Verma R, Krishan S, Haendlmayer K et al (2010) Functional outcome of computer-assisted spinal pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies including 5,992 pedicle screws. Eur Spine J 19:370–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sugano N (2003) Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery. J Orthop Sci 8:442–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kendo D, Citak M, Hüfner T et al (2007) Current concepts and applications of computer navigation in orthopedic trauma surgery. Central Eur J Med 2:392–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Slomczykowski M, Roberto M, Schneeberger P et al (1999) Radiation dose for pedicle screw insertion. Fluoroscopic method versus computer-assisted surgery. Spine 24:975–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gebhard FT, Kraus MD, Schneider E et al (2006) Does computer-assisted spine surgery reduce intraoperative radiation doses? Spine 31:2024–2027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tjardes T, Shafizadeh S, Rixen D et al (2010) Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions. Eur Spine J 19:25–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nai-Feng Tian
    • 1
  • Qi-Shan Huang
    • 1
  • Ping Zhou
    • 1
  • Yang Zhou
    • 1
  • Rui-Kai Wu
    • 1
  • Yi Lou
    • 1
  • Hua-Zi Xu
    • 1
  1. 1.Zhejiang Spine Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySecond Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical CollegeWenzhouChina

Personalised recommendations