Advertisement

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)

  • Sergey V. Vissarionov
  • Dmitriy N. Kokushin
  • Nikita O. Khusainov
  • Kirill A. Kartavenko
  • Marco F. Avila-Rodriguez
  • Siva G. Somasundaram
  • Cecil E. Kirkland
  • Vadim V. Tarasov
  • Gjumrakch AlievEmail author
Original Research
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Methods

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

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).

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

3D prototyping Children Congenital scoliosis Guiding templates Hemivertebrae Pedicle screws 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all participants of the underlying studies.

Funding

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.

Authorship

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.

Disclosures

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).

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.
    Vissarionov SV, Kokushin DN, Kartavenko KA, Efremov AM. Surgical treatment of children with congenital deformity of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. Hirurgia Pozvonochnika [J Spine Surg]. 2012;3:33–7.  https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2012.3.33-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 3.
    Mihailovskii MV, Fomichev NG. Khirurgiya deformatsii pozvonochnika [Surgery of spinal deformities]. Novosibirsk. 2011; p. 592.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ryabykh SO, Gubin AV, Savin DM, Filatov EY. The results of thoracic and lumbar hemivertebrae resection by a dorsal pedicular approach in children. Genij Ortopedii [Orthop Genius]. 2015.  https://doi.org/10.18019/1028-4427-2015-4-42-47.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryabykh SO, Filatov EY, Savin DM. Results of hemivertebra excision through combined, posterior and transpedicular approaches: systematic review. Hirurgia Pozvonochnika [J Spine Surg]. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2017.1.14-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mikhailovsky MV, Novikov VV, Vasyura AS, Udalova IG. Surgical treatment of congenital scoliosis in patients over 10 years old. Hirurgia Pozvonochnika [J Spine Surg]. 2015;12(4):42–8.  https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2015.4.42-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Gubin AV, Riabykh SO, Burcev AV. Retrospective analysis of screw malposition following instrumented correction of thoracic and lumbar spine deformities. Hirurgia Pozvonochnika [J Spine Surg]. 2012;12(1):8–13.  https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2015.1.8-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larson AN, Polly DW Jr, et al. The accuracy of navigation and 3D image-guided placement for the placement of pedicle screws in congenital spine deformity. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012;32(6):23–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e318263a39e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lu S, Xu YQ, Lu WW, et al. A novel patient-specific navigational template for cervical pedicle screw placement. Spine. 2009;34(26):959–66.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c09985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Lu S, Xu YQ, Zhang YZ, et al. A novel computer-assisted drill guide template for lumbar pedicle screw placement: a cadaveric and clinical study. Int J Med Robot. 2009;5(2):184–91.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine. 1990;15(1):11–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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
  17. 17.
    Lu S, Xu YQ, Chen GP, et al. Efficacy and accuracy of a novel rapid prototyping drill template for cervical pedicle screw placement. Comput Aided Surg. 2011;16(5):240–8.  https://doi.org/10.3109/10929088.2011.605173.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berry E, Cuppone M, Porada S, et al. Personalised image-based templates for intra-operative guidance. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2005;219(2):111–8.  https://doi.org/10.1243/095441105x9273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ryken TC, Owen BD, Christensen GE, Reinhardt JM. Image-based drill templates for cervical pedicle screw placement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;10(1):21–6.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2008.9.SPI08229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Ma T, Xu YQ, Cheng YB, et al. A novel computer-assisted drill guide template for thoracic pedicle screw placement: a cadaveric study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(1):65–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1383-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen H, Guo K, Yang H, Wu D, Yuan F. Thoracic pedicle screw placement guide plate produced by three-dimensional (3-D) laser printing. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22:1682–6.  https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.896148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Radermacher K, Portheine F, Anton M, et al. Computer assisted orthopaedic surgery with image based individual templates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;354:28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Birnbaum K, Schkommodau E, Decker N, Prescher A, Klapper U, Radermacher K. Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery with individual templates and comparison to conventional operation method. Spine. 2001;26(4):365–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shao ZX, Wang JS, Lin ZK, Ni WF, Wang XY, Wu AM. Improving the trajectory of transpedicular transdiscal lumbar screw fixation with a computer-assisted 3D-printed custom drill guide. Peer J. 2017;5:e3564.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3564.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang X, Shi J, Zhang S, Zhang Z, Li X, Li Z. Pediatric lumbar pedicle screw placement using navigation templates: a cadaveric study. Indian J Orthop. 2017;51(4):468–73.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.209955.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. 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
  29. 29.
    Kawaguchi Y, Nakano M, Yasuda T, Seki S, Hori T, Kimura T. Development of a new technique for pedicle screw and Magerl screw insertion using a 3-dimensional image guide. Spine. 2012;37(23):1983–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31825ab547.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Burtsev AV, Pavlova OM, Ryabykh SO, Gubin AV. Computer 3D-modeling of patient-specific navigational template for cervical screw insertion. Hirurgia Pozvonochnika [J Spine Surg]. 2018;15(2):33–8.  https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2018.2.33-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 32.
    Lu S, Xu YQ, Zhang YZ, Xie L, Guo H, Li DP. A novel computer-assisted drill guide template for placement of C2 laminar screws. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(9):1379–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1051-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaneyama S, Sugawara T, Sumi M, Higashiyama N, Takabatake M, Mizoi K. A novel screw guiding method with a screw guide template system for posterior C-2 fixation: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):231–8.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.SPINE13730.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jiang L, Dong L, Tan M, et al. A modified personalized image-based drill guide template for atlantoaxial pedicle screw placement: a clinical study. Med Sci Monit. 2017;16(23):1325–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sugawara T, Higashiyama N, Kaneyama S, Sumi M. Accurate and simple screw insertion procedure with patient-specific screw guide templates for posterior C1-C2 fixation. Spine. 2017;42(6):340–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaneyama S, Sugawara T, Sumi M. Safe and accurate midcervical pedicle screw insertion procedure with the patient-specific screw guide template system. Spine. 2015;40(6):341–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lu S, Zhang YZ, Wang Z, et al. Accuracy and efficacy of thoracic pedicle screws in scoliosis with patient-specific drill template. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2012;50(7):751–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-012-0900-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sugawara T, Higashiyama N, Kaneyama S, et al. Multistep pedicle screw insertion procedure with patient-specific lamina fit and-lock templates for the thoracic spine: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(2):185–90.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.4.SPINE121059.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Takemoto M, Fujibayashi S, Ota E, et al. Additive-manufactured patient specific titanium templates for thoracic pedicle screw placement: novel design with reduced contact area. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(6):1698–705.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3908-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. 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
  42. 42.
    Azimifar F, Hassani K, Saveh AH, TabatabaiGhomshe F. A low invasiveness patient’s specific template for spine surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2017;231(2):143–8.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411916682770.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liu K, Zhang Q, Li X, et al. Preliminary application of a multi-level 3D printing drill guide template for pedicle screw placement in severe and rigid scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(6):1684–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4926-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergey V. Vissarionov
    • 1
  • Dmitriy N. Kokushin
    • 1
  • Nikita O. Khusainov
    • 1
  • Kirill A. Kartavenko
    • 1
  • Marco F. Avila-Rodriguez
    • 2
  • Siva G. Somasundaram
    • 3
  • Cecil E. Kirkland
    • 4
  • Vadim V. Tarasov
    • 5
  • Gjumrakch Aliev
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.The Department of Spinal Pathology and NeurosurgeryTurner Scientific and Research Institute for Children’s OrthopedicsSaint PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Facultad de Ciencias de la SaludUniversidad del TolimaIbaguéColombia
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesSalem UniversitySalemUSA
  4. 4.School of Education and BusinessSalem UniversitySalemUSA
  5. 5.Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)MoscowRussia
  6. 6.Institute of Physiologically Active Compounds, Russian Academy of SciencesChernogolovkaRussia
  7. 7.GALLY International Research InstituteSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations