• Sebastian Ille, Lea Baumgart, Thomas Obermueller, Bernhard Meyer, and Sandro M Krieg.
• Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Germany; School of Medicine, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
• Eur Spine J. 2021 Dec 1; 30 (12): 3720-3730.

PurposeMultiple solutions for navigation-guided pedicle screw placement are available. However, the efficiency with regard to clinical and resource implications has not yet been analyzed. The present study's aim was to analyze whether an operating room sliding gantry CT (ORCT)-based approach for spinal instrumentation is more efficient than a mobile cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based approach.MethodsThis cohort study included a random sample of 853 patients who underwent spinal instrumentation using ORCT-based or CBCT-based pedicle screw placement due to tumor, degenerative, trauma, infection, or deformity disorders between November 2015 and January 2020.ResultsMore screws had to be revised intraoperatively in the CBCT group due to insufficient placement (ORCT: 98, 2.8% vs. CBCT: 128, 4.0%; p = 0.0081). The mean time of patients inside the OR (Interval 5 Entry-Exit) was significantly shorter for the ORCT group (ORCT: mean, [95% CI] 256.0, [247.8, 264.3] min, CBCT: 283.0, [274.4, 291.5] min; p < 0.0001) based on shorter times for Interval 2 Positioning-Incision (ORCT: 18.8, [18.1, 19.9] min, CBCT: 33.6, [32.2, 35.5] min; p < 0.0001) and Interval 4 Suture-Exit (ORCT: 24.3, [23.6, 26.1] min, CBCT: 29.3, [27.5, 30.7] min; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe choice of imaging technology for navigated pedicle screw placement has significant impact on standard spine procedures even in a high-volume spine center with daily routine in such devices. Particularly with regard to the duration of surgeries, the shorter time needed for preparation and de-positioning in the ORCT group made the main difference, while the accuracy was even higher for the ORCT.© 2021. The Author(s).

12 keywords...

hide…