Download PDF
Arquivos Brasileiros de Neurocirurgia: Brazilian Neurosurgery 2016; 35(01): 031-038
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1570494
Original Article | Artigo Original
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Percutaneous Pedicle Screws Positioning by means of the “Scotty Dog” Imaging Monitoring Technique in Spine Surgery: A Case Series

Posicionamento de parafuso pedicular percutâneo por meio do método Scotty Dog de monitoramento de imagem em cirurgia de coluna: uma série de casos
Adriano Scaff Garcia
1   MD, MSc, Physician, Centro Especializado em Coluna e Dor, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
José Antonio Braz Galvão
2   MD, Physician, Centro Especializado em Coluna e Dor, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil; Orthopedic Surgeon, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Piero Scarparo
2   MD, Physician, Centro Especializado em Coluna e Dor, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil; Orthopedic Surgeon, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Humberto Bortolo Neto
2   MD, Physician, Centro Especializado em Coluna e Dor, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil; Orthopedic Surgeon, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Pil Sun Choi
2   MD, Physician, Centro Especializado em Coluna e Dor, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil; Orthopedic Surgeon, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

22 October 2014

28 August 2015

Publication Date:
15 February 2016 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Vertebrae, when looked at in x-rays with oblique incidence (45°), seem similar in shape to a Scottish Terrier dog. The "Scotty Dog" incidence is commonly used in spinal pain treatments such as radiofrequency and transforaminal blockages for correct insertion of the needle, because it allows complete visualization of the pedicle. The objective is to describe a series of cases of spinal surgery using the "Scotty Dog" monitoring technique and to evaluate safety.

Methods In this study, we describe all consecutive patients operated by the same surgeon from August 2011 to August 2012 using the "Scotty Dog" technique of fluoroscopic monitoring. Patients were operated for spondylolisthesis, lumbar canal stenosis, spinal disc herniations, and fractures. All patients underwent computed tomography (CT) after surgery to confirm the correct positioning of screws.

Results During the study period, 42 patients with a mean age of 64.5 years underwent operation, most of them for spinal disc herniation correction. In all cases, visualization of the pedicle was possible in all its length and no case of foramen invasion was registered. Surgical time was 98 minutes on average, with no need for transfusion or complications requiring admission to the ICU. There was one case of infection.

Conclusions The Scotty Dog technique for imaging monitoring of the spine provides easy visualization of the whole pedicle, allowing a safe screw insertion. In this case series, there was no case of foramen invasion.

Resumo

Objetivos As vértebras, visualizadas pela incidência oblíqua (45°) nos raios-X, têm o formato de um cão da raça Scottish Terrier. A incidência Scotty Dog é usada em tratamentos de dor na coluna, como radiofrequência e bloqueios transforaminais, para correta inserção da agulha, porque permite completa visualização do pedículo. O objetivo deste trabalho é descrever uma série de casos de cirurgia de coluna usando a técnica de monitoramento Scotty Dog e avaliar segurança.

Métodos Todos os pacientes consecutivos operados pelo mesmo cirurgião de agosto de 2011 a agosto de 2012 usando a técnica Scotty Dog de monitoramento fluoroscópico foram descritos. Pacientes foram operados devido a espondilolistese, estenose do canal vertebral, hérnias e fraturas. Todos os pacientes foram submetidos a tomografia computadorizada após a cirurgia para confirmação do correto posicionamento dos parafusos.

Resultados No período do estudo, 42 pacientes foram operados, com média de idade de 64,5 anos, a maioria para correção de hérnia de disco. Em todos os casos, a visualização do pedículo foi possível em toda a sua extensão e não foi registrado caso de invasão do forame. O tempo de cirurgia foi de 98 minutos em média, sem necessidade de transfusões ou complicações exigindo internação em unidade de terapia intensiva. Houve um caso de infecção.

Conclusões A técnica Scotty Dog de monitoramento por imagem da coluna permite fácil visualização de todo o pedículo e inserção do parafuso com segurança, com nenhum caso de invasão foraminal nesta série de casos.

Keywords

fluoroscopy - surgical diagnostic techniques - percutaneous discectomy - spine - diagnostic imaging

Palavras-chave

fluoroscopia - técnicas de diagnóstico por cirurgia - discotomia percutânea - coluna vertebral - diagnóstico por imagem
 

  • References

  • 1 Brown RC, Evans ET. What causes the “eye in the scotty dog” in the oblique projection of the lumbar spine?. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1973; 118 (2) 435-437
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Millard L. “The Scotty dog and his collar”. J Ark Med Soc 1976; 72 (8) 339-340
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Fish DE, Lee PC, Marcus DB. The S1 “Scotty dog”: report of a technique for S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injection. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88 (12) 1730-1733
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Hubbe U, Kogias E, Vougioukas VI. Image guided percutaneous trans-pedicular screw fixation of the thoracic spine. A clinical evaluation. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2009; 151 (5) 545-549 , discussion 549
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (5, Suppl) S166-S181
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Palmisani M, Gasbarrini A, Brodano GB , et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (Suppl. 01) 71-74
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Pelegri C, Benchikh El Fegoun A, Winter M , et al. Ostéosynthèse percutanée des fractures lombaires et thoracolombaires non neurologiques: technique chirurgicale et résultats préliminaires. Percutaneous osteosynthesis of lumbar and thoracolumbar spine fractures without neurological deficit: surgical technique and preliminary results. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 2008; 94 (5) 456-463
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 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 (10) 1635-1643
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lotfinia I, Sayahmelli S, Gavami M. Postoperative computed tomography assessment of pedicle screw placement accuracy. Turk Neurosurg 2010; 20 (4) 500-507
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Bindal RK, Ghosh S. Intraoperative electromyography monitoring in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6 (2) 126-132
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Harms J, Rolinger H. [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1982; 120 (3) 343-347
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011; 24 (8) 479-484
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 2003; 28 (15, Suppl) S26-S35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Karikari IO, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine 2010; 35 (26, Suppl) S294-S301
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (8) 1741-1749
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Wong AP, Smith ZA, Lall RR, Bresnahan LE, Fessler RG. The microendoscopic decompression of lumbar stenosis: a review of the current literature and clinical results. Minim Invasive Surg 2012; 2012: 325095
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bresnahan L, Ogden AT, Natarajan RN, Fessler RG. A biomechanical evaluation of graded posterior element removal for treatment of lumbar stenosis: comparison of a minimally invasive approach with two standard laminectomy techniques. Spine 2009; 34 (1) 17-23
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Bindal RK, Glaze S, Ognoskie M, Tunner V, Malone R, Ghosh S. Surgeon and patient radiation exposure in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 9 (6) 570-573
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Sugimoto Y, Ito Y, Tomioka M , et al. Clinical accuracy of three-dimensional fluoroscopy (IsoC-3D)-assisted upper thoracic pedicle screw insertion. Acta Med Okayama 2010; 64 (3) 209-212
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Song D, Park P. Primary closure of inadvertent durotomies utilizing the U-Clip in minimally invasive spinal surgery. Spine 2011; 36 (26) E1753-E1757
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Gu Y, Zhang F, Jiang X, Jia L, McGuire R. Minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty in the surgical treatment of thoracolumbar osteoporosis fracture. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 18 (6) 634-640
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kelleher MO, Timlin M, Persaud O, Rampersaud YR. Success and failure of minimally invasive decompression for focal lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without deformity. Spine 2010; 35 (19) E981-E987
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ. Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine 2012; 37 (18) 1548-1557
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Logroscino CA, Proietti L, Pola E, Scaramuzzo L, Tamburrelli FC. A minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine instabilities. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (Suppl. 01) S41-S45
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Lucio JC, Vanconia RB, Deluzio KJ, Lehmen JA, Rodgers JA, Rodgers W. Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2012; 5: 65-74
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 O'Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Fessler RG. Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11 (4) 471-476
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 2007; 32 (5) 537-543
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2009; 34 (13) 1385-1389
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 2010; 35 (17) 1615-1620
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Siemionow K, Pelton MA, Hoskins JA, Singh K. Predictive factors of hospital stay in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and instrumentation. Spine 2012; 37 (24) 2046-2054
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Sugimoto Y, Ito Y, Tomioka M , et al. Upper lumbar pedicle screw insertion using three-dimensional fluoroscopy navigation: assessment of clinical accuracy. Acta Med Okayama 2010; 64 (5) 293-297
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 2010; 19 (10) 1780-1784
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (4) 623-628
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Wu WJ, Liang Y, Zhang XK, Cao P, Zheng T. Complications and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of one- or two-level degenerative disc diseases of the lumbar spine in patients older than 65 years. Chin Med J (Engl) 2012; 125 (14) 2505-2510
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Yang WE, Ng ZX, Koh KM , et al. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for thoracolumbar burst fracture: a Singapore experience. Singapore Med J 2012; 53 (9) 577-581
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar