Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Safety and Efficacy of Power-Assisted Pedicle Tract Preparation and Screw Placement

  • Case Series
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective review of 1 surgeon’s posterior spinal fusion cases.

Objectives

To assess the safety and efficacy of using power tools versus using manual tools to create pedicle tracts and place pedicle screws.

Summary of Background Data

This is the first study to report on the safety and efficacy of pedicle tract creation and pedicle screw placement using power tools.

Methods

The study included 442 cases and 6412 pedicle screws. The manual tool cohort included 159 cases (1,870 screws, January 1, 2004 to June 30,2007). The power tool cohort included 283 cases (4,542 screws, January 1,2008 to August 29,2012). Patient charts and radiographs were reviewed. The researchers recorded the number of screws placed and their positions. Screws were classified as failed if the patient returned to surgery for revision or removal of the screw. Operating and fluoroscopy times were analyzed by cohort overall and for diagnosis-specific subsets.

Results

The incidence of injury resulting from pedicle screw placement was 0.00% (0 of 1,870) with the manual method and 0.02% (1 of 4,542) with power (p =.5211). One screw, placed with power, was assumed to have caused a minor hemothorax, which was successfully treated with a chest tube. There were no neurologic or vascular injuries or other complications attributable to a pedicle screw in either group. Screws placed with power were removed or revised because of problems attributable to the pedicle screw one-sixth as often as those placed using manual tools: 2 of 1,410 (0.14%) versus 8 of 948 (0.84%) (p =.024). Fluoroscopy times in the power cohort were two-thirds as long as those in the manual cohort (p <.001). Operating times were not significantly different (p =.109).

Conclusions

The use of power tools to create pedicle tracts and place pedicle screws was associated with shorter fluoroscopy times and a lower revision rate compared with using manual tools. Both techniques posed similar low risks of injury to the patient.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Asghar J, Samdani AF, Pahys JM, et al. Computed tomography evaluation of rotation correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison of an all pedicle screw construct versus a hook-rod system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:804–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, et al. Selective posterior thoracic fusions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of hooks versus pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:2400–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Liljenqvist U, Lepsien U, Hackenberg L, et al. Comparative analysis of pedicle screw and hook instrumentation in posterior correction and fusion of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2002;11:336–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Suk SI, Kim JH, Kim SS, Lim DJ. Pedicle screw instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Eur Spine J 2012;21:13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wu X, Yang S, Xu W, et al. Comparative intermediate and long-term results of pedicle screw and hook instrumentation in posterior correction and fusion of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010;23:467–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Yilmaz G, Borkhuu B, Dhawale AA, et al. Comparative analysis of hook, hybrid, and pedicle screw instrumentation in the posterior treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 2012;32:490–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Free hand pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine: is it safe? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:333–42; discussion 42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK, et al. Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:2040–8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, et al. Segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1399–405.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown CA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Complications of pediatric thoracolumbar and lumbar pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:1566–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V. Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation: a selected survey of ABS members. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:2231–8; discussion 8-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Liljenqvist UR, Halm HF, Link TM. Pedicle screw instrumentation of the thoracic spine in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:2239–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lonstein JE, Denis F, Perra JH, et al. Complications associated with pedicle screws. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:1519–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee SM, et al. Thoracic pedicle screw fixation in spinal deformities: are they really safe? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:2049–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Elliott D. The use of power tools in the insertion of cortical bone screws. Injury 1992;23:451–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ansell RH, Scales JT. A study of some factors which affect the strength of screws and their insertion and holding power in bone. J Biomech 1968;1:279–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mahajan A, Vadapalli S, Steele B. Biomechanical evaluation of the POWEREASE Tapper/Driver System. Medtronic Internal White Paper 2012. PMD0007528-1.0:1-4.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Auerbach JD, Weidner ZD, Milby AH, et al. Musculoskeletal disorders among spine surgeons: results of a survey of the Scoliosis Research Society membership. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:E1715–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Athwal GS, Bueno Jr RA, Wolfe SW. Radiation exposure in hand surgery: mini versus standard C-arm. J Hand Surg Am 2005;30:1310–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Devalia KL, Peter VK, Madanur MA, Braithwaite IJ. Exposure of the thyroid to radiation during routine orthopaedic procedures. Acta Orthop Belg 2006;72:615–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Giordano BD, Baumhauer JF, Morgan TL, Rechtine II GR. Patient and surgeon radiation exposure: comparison of standard and mini-C-arm fluoroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:297–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Muller LP, Suffner J, Wenda K, et al. Radiation exposure to the hands and the thyroid of the surgeon during intramedullary nailing. Injury 1998;29:461–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Dal Maso L, Bosetti C, La Vecchia C, Franceschi S. Risk factors for thyroid cancer: an epidemiological review focused on nutritional factors. Cancer Causes Control 2009;20:75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ward EM, Jemal A, Chen A. Increasing incidence of thyroid cancer: is diagnostic scrutiny the sole explanation? Future Oncol 2010;6:185–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhu C, Zheng T, Kilfoy BA, et al. A birth cohort analysis of the incidence of papillary thyroid cancer in the United States, 1973–2004. Thyroid 2009;19:1061–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shi YB, Binette M, Martin WH, et al. Electrical stimulation for intra-operative evaluation of thoracic pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phi-la Pa 1976) 2003;28:595–601.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Watanabe K, Lenke LG, Matsumoto M, et al. A novel pedicle channel classification describing osseous anatomy: how many thoracic scoliotic pedicles have cancellous channels? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:1836–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hicks JM, Singla A, Shen FH, Arlet V. Complications of pedicle screw fixation in scoliosis surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:E465–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Samdani AF, Ranade A, Saldanha V, Yondorf MZ. Learning curve for placement of thoracic pedicle screws in the deformed spine. Neuro-surgery 2010;66:290–4; discussion 4-5.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Samdani AF, Ranade A, Sciubba DM, et al. Accuracy of free-hand placement of thoracic pedicle screws in adolescent idiopathic scoli-osis: how much of a difference does surgeon experience make? Eur Spine J 2010;19:91–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Billingsley KG, Morris AM, Green P, et al. Does surgeon case volume influence nonfatal adverse outcomes after rectal cancer resection? J Am Coll Surg 2008;206:1167–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shah SN, Wainess RM, Karunakar MA. Hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture in the elderly surgeon and hospital volume-related outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:503–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shervin N, Rubash HE, Katz JN. Orthopaedic procedure volume and patient outcomes: a systematic literature review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;457:35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Senaran H, Yazici M, Karcaaltincaba M, et al. Lumbar pedicle morphology in the immature spine: a three-dimensional study using spiral computed tomography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:2472–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zindrick MR, Knight GW, Sartori MJ, et al. Pedicle morphology of the immature thoracolumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25: 2726–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Children’s Orthopaedic Center, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, 4650 Sunset Boulevard, Mailstop #69, Los Angeles, CA, 90027, USA

    Derek A. Seehausen BA, David L. Skaggs MD, MMM & Lindsay M. Andras MD

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Southern California, 1200 N. State Street, GNH 3900, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Yashar Javidan MD

Authors
  1. Derek A. Seehausen BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David L. Skaggs MD, MMM
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lindsay M. Andras MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yashar Javidan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. Skaggs MD, MMM.

Additional information

DAS (none); DLS (none); LMA (none); YJ (none).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seehausen, D.A., Skaggs, D.L., Andras, L.M. et al. Safety and Efficacy of Power-Assisted Pedicle Tract Preparation and Screw Placement. Spine Deform 3, 159–165 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.07.001

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.07.001

Keywords

Search

Navigation