European Spine Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 1781–1786 | Cite as

CT accuracy of percutaneous versus open pedicle screw techniques: a series of 1609 screws

  • Todd M. Chapman
  • Daniel J. Blizzard
  • Christopher R. Brown
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Introduction

Traditional open exposure for posterior instrumentation requires significant soft tissue mobilization and causes significant blood loss and increased recovery time. Mal-placed screws can injure nerve roots, the spinal cord, viscera, vasculature and the cardiopulmonary system. Placement of pedicle screws using a minimally invasive technique can decrease bleeding risk, damage to soft tissues, and post-operative pain. The purpose of this study is to compare the radiographic accuracy of open free-hand versus percutaneous technique for pedicle screw placement.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing thoracolumbar surgery from September 2006 to October 2011 with post-operative CT imaging were included in this study. Three-dimensional screw positioning within the pedicle and the vertebral body was assessed on CT. The magnitude and location of violations were measured and recorded. Facet breaches at the cephalad and caudad ends of the construct were documented and graded.

Results

Two-hundred and twenty-three patients met the inclusion criteria for a total of 1609 pedicle screws. Seven-hundred and twenty-four screws were placed using a standard open free-hand technique and 885 were placed percutaneously. There was a significant difference in overall pedicle breach rates: 7.5 % for open and 4.7 % for percutaneous techniques. The magnitude of breach was greater for the percutaneous technique compared to the open technique: 5.4 versus 3.7 mm, respectively. The difference in vertebral body breaches was also significant: 11.3 % for open and 3.6 % for percutaneous. The rates of facet breach did not significantly differ.

Discussion and conclusion

This is the largest series comparing the accuracy of percutaneous to open pedicle screw placement. The rates of pedicle, vertebral body, and facets breaches in the percutaneous group were similar to the rates in the open technique group as well as rates reported in the literature. This demonstrates that the percutaneous technique described here is an accurate alternative to standard open free-hand technique.

Keywords

Percutaneous Pedicle screw Technique Percutaneous technique Open technique 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Senior author (CRB) is a consultant for NuVasive, Inc. and our University Orthopaedic Spine Fellowship receives financial support from NuVasive, Inc. Authors TMC and DJB have no potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    France JC et al (1999) A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion. Outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(6):553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belmont PJ Jr et al (2001) In vivo accuracy of thoracic pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(21):2340–2346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belmont PJ Jr et al (2002) Accuracy of thoracic pedicle screws in patients with and without coronal plane spinal deformities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(14):1558–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castro WH et al (1996) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in lumbar vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21(11):1320–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi WW, Green BA, Levi AD (2000) Computer-assisted fluoroscopic targeting system for pedicle screw insertion. Neurosurgery 47(4):872–878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haaker RG et al (1997) Verification of the position of pedicle screws in lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 6(2):125–128CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim HJ et al (2011) The biomechanical effect of pedicle screws’ insertion angle and position on the superior adjacent segment in one segment lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 37(19):1637–1644Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mirza SK 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 28(4):402–413Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raley DA, Mobbs RJ (2012) Retrospective computed tomography scan analysis of percutaneously inserted pedicle screws for posterior transpedicular stabilization of the thoracic and lumbar spine: accuracy and complication rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(12):1092–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schizas C et al (2007) Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw insertion in percutaneous posterior transpedicular stabilization. Eur Spine J 16(5):613–617CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen Z et al (2008) Technical factors related to the incidence of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation after transpedicular instrumentation in the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 17(11):1476–1480CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moshirfar A et al (2006) Computed tomography evaluation of superior-segment facet-joint violation after pedicle instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a midline surgical approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(22):2624–2629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel RD et al (2011) Facet violation with the placement of percutaneous pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(26):E1749–E1752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shah RR et al (2003) Radiologic evaluation of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation following transpedicular instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(3):272–275Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Foley KT, Gupta SK (2002) Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg 97(1 Suppl):7–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(15 Suppl):S26–S35Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499–517PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khoo LT et al (2002) Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):S166–1PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Perez-Cruet MJ et al (2002) Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):S129–S136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Babu R et al (2012) Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Neurosurgery 71(5):962–970CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Team RDC (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Developer TJA epitools: Epidemiology Tools. R package version 0.5-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=epitools,2012

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations