• Spine · Oct 2005

    Comparative Study

    Cervical pedicle screws: conventional versus computer-assisted placement of cannulated screws.

    • Marcus Richter, Balkan Cakir, and René Schmidt.
    • Spine Center, St. Josefs Hospital, Wiesbaden, Germany. mrichter@joho.de
    • Spine. 2005 Oct 15; 30 (20): 2280-7.

    Study DesignProspective clinical study with postoperative radiologic control of pedicle screw placement in the cervical spine.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether cervical pedicle screws can be placed safely in a conventional technique when using cannulated screws and separate stab incisions. Also, to evaluate if accuracy and safety of pedicle screw placement can be improved using a computer-assisted surgery (CAS) system (VectorVision; BrainLAB AG, Heimstetten, Germany).Summary Of Background DataPedicle screws are rarely used in the cervical spine compared to the use in lumbar and thoracic spine. The main reason is probably the potential risk of iatrogenic damage to the spinal cord, nerve roots, or vertebral artery caused by screw misplacement as well as the more demanding technique of pedicle screw placement in the cervical spine.MethodsA total of 52 consecutive patients with posterior cervical or cervicothoracic instrumentations using pedicle screws were evaluated prospectively. For the first 20 patients, 93 pedicle screws were implanted using the conventional technique with the image intensifier in the lateral view, and for the next 32 patients (167 screws), a CAS system was additionally used. For registration of the vertebra, surface-matching algorithms were used. For evaluation of screw placement, postoperative computerized tomography with multiplanar reconstructions in the screw axis was performed for each screw.ResultsNo implant-related complications were observed. No neurologic or vascular complications were found related to pedicle screws. The rate of pedicle perforations was 8.6% (8 screws) in the conventional group and 3.0% (5 screws) in the CAS group, and in all cases, less than 2-mm displacement. None of the screws with pedicle perforation had to be revised as a result of nonsufficient biomechanical stability or compression of neural/vascular structures.ConclusionsTranspedicular screws in the cervical spine and cervicothoracic junction can be applied safely and with high accuracy in a conventional technique. Cannulated screws and the use of separate stab incisions from C3-C6 with a trocar system allow for reduced screw misplacement rates. The CAS system leads to significantly reduced screw misplacement rates. Therefore, because of the potential risk of injury to the vertebral artery and neural elements, the use of a CAS system seems to be beneficial, especially for pedicle instrumentation C3-C6.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.