Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Pedicle screw insertion: computed tomography versus fluoroscopic image guidance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computed tomography image-guided surgery (CTGS) clearly improves the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion. Recent reports claim that a fluoroscopy-guided system (FGS) offered high accuracy and easy application. However, the superiority of either technique remains unclear in clinical application. This study compares the accuracy of pedicle screws installed using CTGS with that of screws installed using FGS. Seventy-four screws inserted using FGS in 13 patients and 76 screws inserted using CTGS in 11 patients were compared. The study population included ten cases of vertebral fracture, five cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis, three cases of spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, two cases of tuberculous spondylitis, two cases of failed earlier back surgery and two case of ankylosing spondylitis with pseudarthrosis. The installed vertebral levels ranged from T8 to S1. Screw positions were assessed with postoperative radiographs and computed tomography. Sixty-nine (93.2%) screws were correctly placed in the FGS group, and seventy-three (96.1%) screws were correctly placed in the CTGS group (P = 0.491). The results indicated that both image-guided systems offer high accuracy. However, the fluoroscope image-guided system could be considered the primary tool for lower thoracic and lumbosacral pedicle placement because it enables real-time navigation and does not require a preoperative CT scan.

Résumé

La chirurgie assistée par imagerie (CTGS) permet d’avoir une meilleure sécurité lors de l’implantation de vis pediculaires. Des articles récents montrent que le système avec amplificateur de brillance (fluoroscopie FGS) permet également cette implantation. Cependant, la supériorité d’une technique ou d’une autre n’apparaît pas clairement. Le but de cette étude est de comparer la bonne implantation des vis pediculaires en utilisant les deux systèmes. 74 vis ont été insérées avec le système FGS chez 13 patients et 66 vis avec le système CTGS chez 11 patients. Ces deux séries ont été comparées. Cette étude inclut 10 cas de fractures vertébrales, 5 cas de spondylolisthésis dégénératifs, 3 cas de spondylolisthésis avec spondylolyse, à 2 cas d’atteintes tuberculeuses, 2 cas d’échec de chirurgie par voie postérieure et 2 cas de spondylarthrite ankylosante avec pseudarthrose. Les niveaux d’instrumentation se sont échelonnés de T8 à S1. 69 (93.2%) vis ont été correctement mises en place dans le groupe FGS et, 73 (96.1%) avec le groupe CTGS (P = 0.491). Les résultats montrent que le système d’images guidées CTGS offre beaucoup plus de sécurité dans l’implantation des vis tant au niveau lombaire qu’au niveau thoracique ou lombosacré ceci ne nécessite pas par ailleurs un scanner pré opératoire.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amiot LP, Lang K, Putzier M, Zippel H, Labelle H (2000) Comparative results between conventional and computer-assisted pedicle screw installation in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. Spine 25:606–614

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Austin MS, Vaccaro AR, Brislin B, Nachwalter R, Hilibrand AS, Albert TJ (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 27:2503–2508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Belmont PJ Jr, Klemme WR, Dhawan A, Polly DW Jr (2001) In vivo accuracy of thoracic pedicle screws. Spine 26:2340–2346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Castro WHM, Halm H, Jerosch J, Malms J, Steinbeck J, Blasius S (1996) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in lumbar vertebrae. Spine 21:1320–1324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cinotti G, Gumina S, Ripani M, Postacchini F (1999) Pedicle instrumentation in the thoracic spine. Spine 24:114–119

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V (1993) Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation: a selected survey of ABS members. Spine 18:2231–2239

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fu TS, Chen LH, Wong CB, Lai PL, Tsai TT, Niu CC, Chen WJ (2004) Computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation of pedicle screw insertion: an in vivo feasibility study. Acta Orthop Scand 75:730–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kothe R, Strauss JM, Deuretzbacher G, Hemmi T, Lorenzen M, Wiesner L (2001) Computer navigation of parapedicular screw fixation in the thoracic spine. Spine 26:E496–E501

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Merloz P, Tonetti J, Pittet L, Coulomb M, Lavallee S, Sautot P (1998) Pedicle screw placement using image guided techniques. Clin Orthop 354:39–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mirza SK, Wiggins GC, Kuntz C, York JE, Bellabarba C, Knonodi MA, Chapman JR, Shaffrey CI (2003) Accuracy of thoracic vertebral body screw placement using standard fluoroscopy, fluoroscopic image guidance, and computed tomographic image guidance: a cadaver study. Spine 28:402–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nolte LP, Slomczykowski MA, Berlemann U, Strauss MJ, Hofstetter R, Schlenzka D, Laine T, Lund T (2000) A new approach to computer-aided spine surgery: fluoroscopy-based surgical navigation. Eur Spine J 9(suppl 1):78–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Odgers CJ IV, Vaccaro AR, Pollack ME, Cotler JM (1996) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement with the assistance of lateral plain radiography. J Spinal Disord 9:334–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pinto MR (1992) Complications of pedicle screw fixation. Spine 6:45–54

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rampersaud YR, Foley KT, Shen AC, Williams S, Solomito M (2000) Radiation exposure to the spine surgeon during fluoroscopically assisted pedicle screw insertion. Spine 25:2637–2645

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Jost B, Visarius H, Arm E, Langlotz F, Nolte LP, Ozdoba C (1997) Accuracy of computer-assisted pedicle screw placement. An in vivo computed tomography analysis. Spine 22:452–458

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vaccaro AR, Rizzolo SJ, Balderston RA, Allardyce TJ, Garfin SR, Dolinskas C, An HS (1995) Placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 77:1200–1206

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Youkilis AS, Quint DJ, McGillicuddy JE, Papadopoulos SM (2001) Stereotactic navigation for placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. Neurosurgery 48:771–779

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wen-Jer Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fu, TS., Wong, CB., Tsai, TT. et al. Pedicle screw insertion: computed tomography versus fluoroscopic image guidance. International Orthopaedics (SICO 32, 517–521 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0358-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0358-1

Keywords

Navigation