Advertisement

Does image guidance decrease pedicle screw-related complications in surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review update and meta-analysis

  • Andrew Chan
  • Eric ParentEmail author
  • Jason Wong
  • Karl Narvacan
  • Cindy San
  • Edmond Lou
Review Article
  • 62 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Surgical treatment of severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) with posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion with pedicle screws is common, requiring careful screw insertion to prevent pedicle breaches and neurologic complications. Image guidance has been suggested to improve breach rates, though the radiation risk for AIS precludes its common usage. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the breach rates and screw-related complications for AIS patients undergoing spine surgery with pedicle screws between freehand screw insertion and image guidance methods.

Methods

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases was conducted. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, full-texts, extracted data and performed risk of bias assessment using the QUIPS quality appraisal tool. Level of evidence summary statements were formulated based on consistency and quality of reporting.

Results

Ninety-four studies were found, with 18 studies of moderate risk of bias or better. Moderate evidence from two head-to-head studies shows CT guidance has lower breach rates than freehand methods (OR 0.28 [0.20–0.40, I2 = 1%]), with no complications in either study. From individual studies, moderate evidence showed lower breach rates for image guidance versus freehand methods (13%, I2 = 98% vs. 20%, I2 = 95%). Complication rates were conflicting (0–1.6% for image guidance, 0–1.7% for freehand). Moderate evidence showed increased surgical time for image guidance versus freehand (257.7 min vs. 226.8 min).

Conclusions

Meta-analyzed breach rates show moderate evidence of decreased breaches with CT navigation compared with freehand methods. Complication rates remain unknown due to the low complication rates from small sample sizes.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Image guidance Spine surgery Systematic review Meta-analysis Pedicle breaches 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Elizabeth Dennett from the University of Alberta provided guidance on search terms and search strategy. Dr. Marc Moreau and Sarah Southon from Alberta Health Services and the Edmonton Scoliosis Clinic provided search terms and guidance on objectives and key outcomes for this study. Undergraduate student Suzana Trac helped with study de-duplication and study design assessment.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6219_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (171 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 171 kb)
586_2019_6219_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (110 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 110 kb)
586_2019_6219_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (153 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 153 kb)
586_2019_6219_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (1.3 mb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 1320 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Cheng JC, Danielsson A, Morcuende JA (2008) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet (Lond Engl) 371:1527–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bridwell KH (1999) Surgical treatment of idiopathic adolescent scoliosis. Spine 24:2607–2616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basques BA, Lukasiewicz AM, Samuel AM, Webb ML, Bohl DD, Smith BG et al (2017) Which pediatric orthopaedic procedures have the greatest risk of adverse outcomes? J Pediatr Orthop 37:429–434.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000683 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuartas E, Rasouli A, O’Brien M, Shufflebarger HL (2009) Use of all-pedicle-screw constructs in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:550–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hicks J, Singla A, Shen F, Arlet V (2010) Complications of pedicle screw fixation in scoliosis surgery. Spine 35:E465–E470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reames D, Smith J, Fu K-M (2011) Complications in the surgical treatment of 19,360 cases of pediatric scoliosis. Spine 36:1484–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coe JD, Arlet V, Donaldson W, Berven S, Hanson DS, Mudiyam R et al (2006) Complications in spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the new millennium. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:345–349.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000197188.76369.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Helm PA, Teichman R, Hartmann SL, Simon D (2015) Spinal navigation and imaging: history, trends, and future. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 34:1738–1746.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2015.2391200 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan A, Parent E, Narvacan K, San C, Lou E (2017) Intraoperative image guidance compared with free-hand methods in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis posterior spinal surgery: a systematic review on screw-related complications and breach rates. Spine J 17:1215–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao B, Gao W, Chen C, Wang Q, Lin S, Xu C et al (2017) What is the difference in morphologic features of the thoracic pedicle between patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and healthy subjects? A CT-based case-control study. Clin Orthop.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5448-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rampersaud YR, Simon DA, Foley KT (2001) Accuracy requirements for image-guided spinal pedicle screw placement. Spine 26:352–359.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200102150-0001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 22:276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Côté P, Bombardier C (2013) Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med 158:280–286.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Heymans MW, Koes BW, de Vet HC, Terwee CB (2012) Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Qual Life Res 21:659–670.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9965-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Su AW, McIntosh AL, Schueler BA, Milbrandt TA, Winkler JA, Stans AA et al (2017) How does patient radiation exposure compare with low-dose o-arm versus fluoroscopy for pedicle screw placement in idiopathic scoliosis? J Pediatr Orthop 37:171–177.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000608 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ughwanogho E, Patel NM, Baldwin KD, Sampson NR, Flynn JM (2012) Computed tomography-guided navigation of thoracic pedicle screws for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis results in more accurate placement and less screw removal. Spine 37:E473–E478.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318238bbd9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sakai Y, Matsuyama Y, Nakamura H, Katayama Y, Imagama S, Ito Z et al (2008) Segmental pedicle screwing for idiopathic scoliosis using computer-assisted surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:181–186.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318074d388 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vissarionov S, Schroeder JE, Novikov SN, Kokyshin D, Belanchikov S, Kaplan L (2014) The utility of 3-dimensional-navigation in the surgical treatment of children with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 2:270–275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.03.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhu W, Sun W, Xu L, Sun X, Liu Z, Qiu Y et al (2017) Minimally invasive scoliosis surgery assisted by O-arm navigation for Lenke Type 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison with standard open approach spinal instrumentation. J Neurosurg Pediatr 19:472–478.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.11.PEDS16412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu Z, Jin M, Qiu Y, Yan H, Han X, Zhu Z (2016) The superiority of intraoperative o-arm navigation-assisted surgery in instrumenting extremely small thoracic pedicles of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a case-control study. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e3581.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Su P, Zhang W, Peng Y, Liang A, Du K, Huang D (2012) Use of computed tomographic reconstruction to establish the ideal entry point for pedicle screws in idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 21:23–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1962-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Takahashi J, Hirabayashi H, Hashidate H, Ogihara N, Kato H (2010) Accuracy of multilevel registration in image-guided pedicle screw insertion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35:347–352.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b77f0a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Akazawa T, Kotani T, Sakuma T, Minami S, Tsukamoto S, Ishige M (2015) Evaluation of pedicle screw placement by pedicle channel grade in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: should we challenge narrow pedicles? J Orthop Sci 20:818–822.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-015-0746-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang W, Takigawa T, Wu Y, Sugimoto Y, Tanaka M, Ozaki T (2017) Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion in posterior scoliosis surgery: a comparison between intraoperative navigation and preoperative navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 26:1756–1764.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4930-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uehara M, Takahashi J, Kuraishi S, Shimizu M, Ikegami S, Futatsugi T et al (2017) Computer-assisted skip pedicle screw fixation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Orthop Sci 22:218–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2016.11.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shufflebarger HL, Geck MJ, Clark CE (2004) The posterior approach for lumbar and thoracolumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: posterior shortening and pedicle screws. Spine 29:269–276 (discussion 276) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen J, Yang C, Ran B, Wang Y, Wang C, Zhu X et al (2013) Correction of Lenke 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using pedicle screw instrumentation: does implant density influence the correction? Spine 38:E946–E951.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318297bfd4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sudo H, Ito M, Abe Y, Abumi K, Takahata M, Nagahama K et al (2014) Surgical treatment of Lenke 1 thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with maintenance of kyphosis using the simultaneous double-rod rotation technique. Spine 39:1163–1169.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000364 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Upendra BN, Meena D, Chowdhury B, Ahmad A, Jayaswal A (2008) Outcome-based classification for assessment of thoracic pedicular screw placement. Spine 33:384–390.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181646ba1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kwan MK, Chiu CK, Gani SMA, Chan CYW (2016) Accuracy and safety of pedicle screw placement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients: a review of 2020 screws using computed tomography assessment. Spine.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001738 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sudo H, Abe Y, Abumi K, Iwasaki N, Ito M (2016) Surgical treatment of double thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with a rigid proximal thoracic curve. Eur Spine J 25:569–577.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4139-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Macke JJ, Woo R, Varich L (2016) Accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the pediatric population. J Robot Surg 10:145–150.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0587-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 15:11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Abul-Kasim K, Ohlin A (2011) The rate of screw misplacement in segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Acta Orthop 82:50–55.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.548032 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zheng X, Qian B-P, Liu Z, Sun X, Zhu Z-Z, Wang B et al (2017) Screw placement at the apex alters surgical outcomes of moderate Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Spine Surg 30:E883–E891.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000435 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Etemadifar M, Jamalaldini M (2017) Evaluating accuracy of free-hand pedicle screw insertion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using postoperative multi-slice computed tomography scan. Adv Biomed Res 6:19.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.201331 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Abul-Kasim K, Ohlin A, Strömbeck A, Maly P, Sundgren PC (2010) Radiological and clinical outcome of screw placement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: evaluation with low-dose computed tomography. Eur Spine J 19:96–104.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1203-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang W, Zhu Z, Zhu F, Wang B, Chu WCW, Cheng JCY et al (2008) The changes of relative position of the thoracic aorta after anterior or posterior instrumentation of type I Lenke curve in adolescent idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 17:1019–1026.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0691-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wong CC, Ting F, Wong B, Lee PI (2005) Accuracy of the funnel technique of thoracic pedicle screws insertion in scoliosis surgery—an evaluation by CT-scans. Med J Malaysia 60(Suppl C):35–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parker SL, McGirt MJ, Farber SH, Amin AG, Rick A-M, Suk I et al (2011) Accuracy of free-hand pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine: analysis of 6816 consecutive screws. Neurosurgery 68:170–178.  https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0b013e3181fdfaf4(discussion 178) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Modi H, Suh SW, Song H-R, Yang J-H (2009) Accuracy of thoracic pedicle screw placement in scoliosis using the ideal pedicle entry point during the freehand technique. Int Orthop 33:469–475.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0535-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Burton DC, Carlson BB, Place HM, Fuller JE, Blanke K, Cho R et al (2016) Results of the scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality database 2009–2012: a report from the morbidity and mortality committee. Spine Deform 4:338–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2016.05.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vasudeva V, Moses Z, Cole T, Gologorsky Y, Lu Y (2015) Chapter 14—image guidance for spine surgery. In: Golby AJ (ed) Image-guided neurosurgery. Academic Press, Boston, pp 325–364.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-800870-6.00014-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cheng H, Chen BP-H, Soleas IM, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P (2017) Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: a systematic review. Surg Infect 18:722–735.  https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2017.089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee CK, Chan CYW, Gani SMA, Kwan MK (2017) Accuracy of cannulated pedicle screw versus conventional pedicle screw for extra-pedicular screw placement in dysplastic pedicles without cancellous channel in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a computerized tomography (CT) analysis. Eur Spine J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5266-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Abul-Kasim K, Ohlin A (2014) Evaluation of implant loosening following segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 2 year follow-up with low-dose CT. Scoliosis 9:13.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-9-13 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Aoude AA, Fortin M, Figueiredo R, Jarzem P, Ouellet J, Weber MH (2015) Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 24:990–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3853-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation MedicineUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.Faculty of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  5. 5.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations