Volume 4 | Issue 1 | April 2023 – September 2023 | page: 09-13 | Bharat R. Dave, Ajay Krishnan, Devanand Degulmadi, Shivanand Mayi, Ravi Ranjan Rai, Mirant B. Dave
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/bbj.20232.v04i01.053
Authors: Bharat R. Dave [1], Ajay Krishnan [1], Devanand Degulmadi [1], Shivanand Mayi [1], Ravi Ranjan Rai [1], Mirant B. Dave [1]
[1] Department of Spine Surgery, Stavya Spine Hospital and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ravi Ranjan Rai,
Spine Surgeon, Department of Spine Surgery, Stavya Spine Hospital and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
E-mail: drravirai84@gmail.com
Abstract
Introduction- Traditionally MIS TLIF is being performed under fluoroscopic guidance, which is technically difficult in few cases, often inaccurate and involves excessive radiation exposure to the surgeon and OR personnel. Navigation promises to be a better tool, however, literature regarding its accuracy is still evolving.
Aims & Objectives- To evaluate the pedicle screw perforation rate in Navigation guided MIS TLIF
Materials and Methods- All consecutive patients undergoing MIS TLIF under 3D Navigation at single institute between January 2019 to January 2021 were included in the study. O-arm and S8 Stealth Navigation was used in all cases. After prone positioning and part preparation, patient tracker was fixed to a bony point nearest to the operative site, and then first CT scan spin was taken. Under Navigation guidance, all four guide wires were placed. Decompression was planned from the side which was more symptomatic. Screws on the opposite side were placed and connected with rod. Decompression was performed, and interbody cage was inserted from the symptomatic side, followed by insertion of remaining two screws under Navigation. A final CT scan spin was taken to determine the accuracy of hardware.
Results- 92 MIS TLIF were performed during the study period under 3D Navigation. 368 screws in 92 patients were analysed for accuracy. The direction and degree of breach was recorded. Four screws were found to breach, two were lateral breach, one superior breach and one medial breach. All breaches were Gr 1 and none of the screws required revision. Overall accuracy was 98.91 percent.
Conclusion- 3D Navigation is a useful tool in guiding placement of pedicle screws with high accuracy. This tool would be particularly indispensable in MISS cases, when tactile feedback is minimal.
Keywords- Surgical Navigation Systems, Computer-Assisted surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures, Pedicle Screws.
References
1) Tian NF, Xu HZ. Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2009; 33:895-903. 10.1007/s00264-009-0792
2) Nathaniel W. Jenkins, James M. Parrish, Evan D. Sheha, Kern Singh. Intraoperative risks of radiation exposure for the surgeon and patient. Ann Transl Med 2021;9(1):84.
3) Go Yoshida, Koji Sato, Tokumi Kanemura, Toshiki Iwase, Daisuke Togawa, Yukihiro Matsuyama. Accuracy of Percutaneous Lumbosacral Pedicle Screw Placement Using the Oblique Fluoroscopic View Based on Computed Tomography Evaluations. Asian Spine J. 2016 Aug; 10(4): 630–638. Published online 2016 Aug 16.
4) Kim MC, Chung HT, Cho JL, Kim DJ, Chung NS. Factors affecting the accurate placement of percutaneous pedicle screws during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2011; 20:1635-43.
5) Zhang Q., Xu Y. F., Tian W., et al. Comparison of superior‐level facet joint violations between robot‐assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement and conventional open fluoroscopic‐guided pedicle screw placement. Orthopaedic Surgery. 2019;11(5):850–856.
6) Babu R, Park JG, Mehta AI, et al. Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Neurosurgery, 2012, 71: 962–970.
7) Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Sung NY. Cranial facet joint violations by percutaneously placed pedicle screws adjacent to a minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J, 2011, 11: 295–302.
8) Jones-Quaidoo, S. M., Djurasovic, M., Owens, R. K., II, & Carreon, L. Y. (2013). Superior articulating facet violation: percutaneous versus open techniques, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine SPI, 18(6), 593-597.
9) Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990; 15:11–4.
10) Tarun Dusad, Vishal Kundnani, Shumayou Dutta, Ankit Patel, Gaurav Mehta, Mahendra Singh. Comparative Prospective Study Reporting Intraoperative Parameters, Pedicle Screw Perforation, and Radiation Exposure in Navigation-Guided versus Non-navigated Fluoroscopy-Assisted Minimal Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Asian Spine J 2018;12(2):309-316.
11) Xiaofeng Lian, Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez, Connor Berlin, Ajit Jada, Yu Moriguchi, Qiwei Zhang, and Roger Hartl. Total 3D Airo Navigation for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. BioMed Research International Volume 2016, Article ID 5027340, 8 pages.
12) Guan‐yu Cui, Xiao‐guang Han, Yi Wei, Ya‐jun Liu, Da He, Yu‐qing Sun, Bo Liu, Wei Tian.Robot‐Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Orthop Surg. 2021 Oct; 13(7): 1960–1968.
13) Shangju Gao, Jingchao Wei, Wenyi Li, Long Zhang, Can Cao, Jinshuai Zhai, Bo Gao. Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement under Regional Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Pain Res Manag. 2021; 2021: 6894001. Published online 2021 Dec 20.
14) Yang J.-S., He B., Tian F., et al. Accuracy of robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement for treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative cohort study. Medical Science Monitor. 2019; 25:2479–2487.
15) Kim H. J., Jung W. I., Chang B. S., Lee C. K., Kang K. T., Yeom J. S. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs. freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery: MRCAS. 2017;13(3).
16) Joseph A. Weiner, Michael H. McCarthy, Peter Swiatek, Philip K. Louie, Sheeraz A. Qureshi. Narrative review of intraoperative image guidance for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Ann Transl Med. 2021 Jan; 9(1): 89.
17) Erik Wang, Jordan Manning, Christopher G. Varlotta, Dainn Woo, Ethan Ayres, Edem Abotsi, Dennis Vasquez-Montes, Themistocles S. Protopsaltis, Jeffrey A. Goldstein, Anthony K. Frempong-Boadu, Peter G. Passias, and Aaron J. Buckland. Radiation Exposure in Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Comparison of CT Image-Guided Navigation, Robotic Assistance, and Intraoperative Fluoroscopy. Global Spine Journal 2021, Vol. 11(4) 450-457.
18) Funao H, Ishii K, Momoshima S, Iwanami A, Hosogane N, et al. (2014) Surgeons’ Exposure to Radiation in Single- and Multi-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion; A Prospective Study. PLoS ONE 9(4): e95233.
19) Nicolas Dea, MD, MSca, *, Charles G. Fisher, MD, MHScb , Juliet Batke, BScb , Jason Strelzow, MDb , Daniel Mendelsohn, MDb , Scott J. Paquette, MDb , Brian K. Kwon, MD, PhDb , Michael D. Boyd, MDb , Marcel F.S. Dvorak, MDb , John T. Street. Economic evaluation comparing intraoperative cone beam CT-based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for the placement of spinal pedicle screws: a patient-level data cost-effectiveness analysis. The Spine Journal 16 (2016) 23–31.
How to Cite this Article: Dave BR, Krishnan A, Degulmadi D, Mayi S, Rai RR, Dave MB | Should 3D Navigation be the Standard of Care for MIS TLIF?| Back Bone: The Spine Journal | April 2023-September 2023; 4(1): 09-13 | https://doi.org/10.13107/bbj.2023.v04i01.053
|
.
