Lumbar and sacral pedicle screw placement using a template does not improve the midterm pain and disability outcome in comparison with free-hand method
- 514 Downloads
The free-hand technique carries a higher risk of pedicle weakening and neurovascular injuries in comparison with pedicle screw placement using a drill guide. Due to this evidence and because of some variances in the surgical method, different outcome can be expected. The objective of the study was to evaluate the disability, the back and leg pain before and at least 3 years after the surgery between examined groups.
Materials and methods
Eleven patients in drill guide and 13 in control group were randomly assigned for vertebral fusion in the lumbar and first sacral regions. Pre- and post-operative CT scans, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain were taken. Post-operative evaluations of cortex perforation and statistical analysis between studied groups have been performed.
Seventy-two screws were inserted in each group. All patients completed a 3-year follow-up. Comparing groups, there was no statistical significant difference in VAS and ODI before or after surgery. Cortex perforation incidence in drill guide group was 6 and in free-hand group 29 (p < 0.05). In each group, pain and disability were significantly lower as before the procedure.
The application of a drill guide template for pedicle screw placement is not more effective in reducing pain and disability after midterm follow-up in comparison with the free-hand technique. However, it reduces the cortex perforation incidence. Concerning this evidence, a drill guide is still an additional tool that could in the future potentially compete with other screw placement techniques.
KeywordsFollow-up Perforation ODI VAS Drill guide
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Experiments comply with the current law of the country in which they were performed.
- 7.Van Brussel K, Vander S, Van Audekercke R, Swaelens B, Van den Berghe L, Fabry G (1998) A medical image based template for pedicle screw insertion. Comput Method Biomech Biomed 2:347–354Google Scholar
- 12.Lu S, Xu Y-Q, Zhang Y-Z, Li Y-B, Shi J-H, Chen G-P et al (2009) Rapid prototyping drill guide template for lumbar pedicle screw placement. Chin J Traumatol Zhonghua Chuang Shang Za Zhi Chin Med Assoc 12(3):177–180Google Scholar
- 14.Hu Y, Yuan Z, Spiker WR, Albert TJ, Dong W, Xie H et al (2013) Deviation analysis of C2 translaminar screw placement assisted by a novel rapid prototyping drill template: a cadaveric study. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 22(12):2770–2776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Drstvensek I, Hren NI, Strojnik T, Brajlih T, Valentan B, Pogacar V et al (2008) Applications of rapid prototyping in cranio-maxilofacial surgery procedures. Int J Biol Biomed Eng 1:29–38Google Scholar
- 27.Gelalis ID, Paschos NK, Pakos EE, Politis AN, Arnaoutoglou CM, Karageorgos AC, Ploumis A, Xenakis TA (2012) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 21(2):247–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar