Comparing the Treatment of Congenital Spine Deformity Using Freehand Techniques In Vivo and 3D-Printed Templates In Vitro (Prospective–Retrospective Single-Center Analytical Single-Cohort Study)
- 19 Downloads
Hemivertebrae excision with local posterior instrumentation is the most common technique for treatment of patients with congenital spine deformity—it is performed at a very young age. We conducted a comparative analysis for accuracy of pedicle screw positioning in infants with congenital scoliosis of the thoracolumbar area inserted using freehand technique in vivo and 3D-printed guiding templates in vitro.
The study analyzes the results of 10 surgically treated patients with congenital deformity of the thoracolumbar spine due to vertebrae failure of formation. These patients were included in group 1 (in vivo) comprising six boys and four girls with a mean age of 3 years 8 months (2 years 2 months–6 years 8 month). Group 2 (in vitro) consisted of 27 plastic 3D-printed models of congenitally deformed spine of the same 10 patients in which screws were placed using 3D-printed guiding templates. The accuracy of screw position was assessed using computer tomography data performed postoperatively with Gertzbein–Robbins classification.
Results of our study show that screw insertion using 3D-printed guiding templates during surgical treatment of infants with congenital spine deformities is more accurate than using freehand technique (96.3% vs. 78.8% p = 0.011).
The data show that this method of screw insertion is very promising and can be used in surgical treatment of infants with congenital spine deformities.
Keywords3D prototyping Children Congenital scoliosis Guiding templates Hemivertebrae Pedicle screws
We thank all participants of the underlying studies.
This work was supported by Russian Academic Excellence project “5–100” for the Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. No funding was received for the publication of this article.
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
Gjumrakch Aliev is employed by GALLY International Biomedical Research LLC. Sergey V. Vissarionov, Dmitriy N. Kokushin, Nikita O. Khusainov, Kirill A. Kartavenko, Marco F. Avila-Rodriguez, Siva G. Somasundaram, Cecil E. Kirkland, and Vadim V. Tarasov have nothing to disclose.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
The study protocol was approved by the Turner Scientific and Research Institute for Children’s Orthopaedics (within the Department of Spinal Pathology and Neurosurgery), Pushkin, Saint Petersburg, Russia. All research was performed in accordance with Turner Scientific and Research Institute guidelines and regulations, and the respective authors declare a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all of the participants’ parents and/or their legal guardians. In addition to the guidelines described above, the authors of these study dealing with human transplantation research attested that no organs/tissues were procured from prisoners. No animals were used for studies that are the basis of this research. All research on humans was in accordance with the ethical standards of the committee responsible for human experimentation (institutional and national), and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013 (http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/3931).
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
- 2.Vissarionov SV, Kokushin DN, Belyanchikov SM, Murashko VV, Kartavenko KA. Surgical treatment of congenital deformation of thoracolumbar spine in children. Ortopediya, travmatologiya i vosstanovitelnaya hurgiya detskogo vozrasta [Pediatr Traumatol Orthop Reconstruct Surg]. 2013;1(1):10–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Mihailovskii MV, Fomichev NG. Khirurgiya deformatsii pozvonochnika [Surgery of spinal deformities]. Novosibirsk. 2011; p. 592.Google Scholar
- 7.Kuleshov AA, Lisyansky IN, Vetrile MS, Gavryushenko NS. Fomin LV. Comparative experimental study of hook and pedicle fixation systems used at surgical treatment of spine deformities. Vestnik Travmatologii I Ortopedii imeni N.N. Priorova [J Traumatol Orthop Priorov]. 2012;3:20–4.Google Scholar
- 11.Hu Y, Yuan ZS, Spiker WR, et al. A comparative study on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement assisted by personalized rapid prototyping template between pre- and post-operation in patients with relatively normal mid-upper thoracic spine. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(6):1706–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4540-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Putzier M, Strube P, Cecchinato R, Lamartina C, Hoff EK. A new navigational tool for pedicle screw placement in patients with severe scoliosis: a pilot study to prove feasibility, accuracy, and identify operative challenges. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(4):430–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kokushin DN, Belyanchikov SM, Murashko VV, Kartavenko KA, Khusainov NO. Comparative analysis of the accuracy of pedicle screws insertion in surgical treatment of children with idiopathic scoliosis. Hirurgia Pozvonochnika [J Spine Surg]. 2017;14(4):8–17. https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2017.4.8-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Vissarionov SV. Anatomic-anthropometric basis of transpedicular fixation in children of 1.5–5 years old. Hirurgia Pozvonochnika [J Spine Surg]. 2006;3:19–23.Google Scholar
- 20.Bundoc RC, Delgado GG, Grozman SA. A novel patient-specific drill guide template for pedicle screw insertion into the subaxial cervical spine utilizing stereolithographic modelling: an in vitro study. Asian Spine J. 2017;11(1):4–14. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.1.4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Lamartina C, Cecchinato R, Fekete Z, Lipari A, Fiechter M, Berjano P. Pedicle screw placement accuracy in thoracic and lumbar spinal surgery with a patient-matched targeting guide: a cadaveric study. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(7):937–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4261-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Farshad M, Betz M, Farshad-Amacker NA, Moser M. Accuracy of patient-specific template-guided vs free-hand fuoroscopically controlled pedicle screw placement in the thoracic and lumbar spine: a randomized cadaveric study. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(3):738–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4728-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Goffin J, Van Brussel K, Martens K, Vander Sloten J, Van Audekercke R, Smet MH. Three-dimensional computed tomography-based, personalized drill guide for posterior cervical stabilization at C1-C2. Spine. 2001;26(12):1343–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200106150-00017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Pan Y, Lü GH, Kuang L, Wang B. Accuracy of thoracic pedicle screw placement in adolescent patients with severe spinal deformities: a retrospective study comparing drill guide template with free hand technique. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(2):319–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5410-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Merc M, Drstvensek I, Vogrin M, Brajlih T, Recnik G. A multi-level rapid prototyping drill guide template reduces the perforation risk of pedicle screw placement in the lumbar and sacral spine. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(7):893–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1755-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar