Maintenance of Integrity of Upper Facet Joints during Simulated Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Insertion Using 2D versus 3D Planning

Abstract

Background No studies have directly and quantitatively compared two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) planning as applied during conventional percutaneous or navigated percutaneous pedicle screw placement.

Study Aims This lumbar pedicle-based stabilization simulation study aimed to investigate the risk of upper facet joint violation (FJV) during posterior percutaneous pedicle screw placement with conventional 2D planning of screw implantation (as a model for fluoroscopically guided screws) compared with 3D planning (as used with navigation techniques).

Methods The placement of monosegmental lumbar pedicle screws using the data sets of 250 consecutive patients was simulated. Conventional surgery (using 2D fluoroscopic images anteroposterior and lateral view) was compared with screw placement using the 3D reconstruction of the planning mode of the same software.

Results The 2D planning resulted in 140 upper FJVs (28% of cases), whereas 3D planning resulted in only 24 upper FJVs (4.8% of cases) (p < 0.05). Among those spinal segments with severe facet joint arthropathy, Pathria grades 3 and 4, FJV was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the 2D-planned screws (64.7%) than in the 3D-planned screws (11.2%). A more lateral (mean distance: 3.5 mm) and inferior (mean distance: 2.5 mm) offset of the pedicle entry point and a larger medial angulation of the trajectory (mean angle: 9 degrees) were observed for the 3D-planned screws at all levels.

Conclusion This study demonstrates that the use of 2D planning is associated with a higher risk of upper FJV than when a 3D imaging data set is used. Using a more lateral and inferior entry point for fluoroscopically guided pedicle screws could reduce the rate of FJV in percutaneous pedicle screw placement.

Keywords

pedicle screws - 3D simulation study - minimally invasive - facet joint violation - robotic

Financial Support

No grants were received for this work. The authors have no personal or institutional financial interest in drugs, materials, or devices described in this submission.

• References

• 1 Archavlis E, Carvi y Nievas M, Ulrich P. Preliminary results of minimally invasive decompression, TLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw insertion in stenotic spondylolisthesis with severe facet joint osteoarthritis. J Spine 2013; S5: 4
• 2 Levin JM, Alentado VJ, Healy AT, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. Superior segment facet joint violation during instrumented lumbar fusion is associated with higher reoperation rates and diminished improvement in quality of life. Clin Spine Surg 2018; 31 (01) E36-E41
• 3 Knox JB, Dai III JM, Orchowski JR. Superior segment facet joint violation and cortical violation after minimally invasive pedicle screw placement. Spine J 2011; 11 (03) 213-217
• 4 Patel RD, Graziano GP, Vanderhave KL, Patel AA, Gerling MC. Facet violation with the placement of percutaneous pedicle screws. Spine 2011; 36 (26) E1749-E1752
• 5 Archavlis E, Amr N, Kantelhardt SR, Giese A. Rates of upper facet joint violation in minimally invasive percutaneous and open instrumentation: a comparative cohort study of different insertion techniques. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2018; 79 (01) 1-8
• 6 Kantelhardt SR, Martinez R, Baerwinkel S, Burger R, Giese A, Rohde V. Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (06) 860-868
• 7 Kantelhardt SR, Keric N, Conrad J. , et al. C-OnSite ® for intraoperative 3D control of pedicular screw positions. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014; 156 (09) 1799-1805
• 8 Ohba T, Ebata S, Fujita K, Sato H, Haro H. Percutaneous pedicle screw placements: accuracy and rates of cranial facet joint violation using conventional fluoroscopy compared with intraoperative three-dimensional computed tomography computer navigation. Eur Spine J 2016; 25 (06) 1775-1780
• 9 Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 2004; 29 (17) 1938-1944
• 10 Weinstein JN, Rydevik BL, Rauschning W. Anatomic and technical considerations of pedicle screw fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; (284) 34-46
• 11 Pathria M, Sartoris DJ, Resnick D. Osteoarthritis of the facet joints: accuracy of oblique radiographic assessment. Radiology 1987; 164 (01) 227-230
• 12 Stieber J, Quirno M, Cunningham M, Errico TJ, Bendo JA. The reliability of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging grading of lumbar facet arthropathy in total disc replacement patients. Spine 2009; 34 (23) E833-E840
• 13 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 (05) 962-970
• 14 Chung KJ, Suh SW, Swapnil K, Yang JH, Song HR. Facet joint violation during pedicle screw insertion: a cadaveric study of the adult lumbosacral spine comparing the two pedicle screw insertion techniques. Int Orthop 2007; 31 (05) 653-656
• 15 Chen Z, Zhao J, Xu H, Liu A, Yuan J, Wang C. Technical factors related to the incidence of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation after transpedicular instrumentation in the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (11) 1476-1480
• 16 Jones-Quaidoo SM, Djurasovic M, Owens II RK, Carreon LY. Superior articulating facet violation: percutaneous versus open techniques. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 18 (06) 593-597
• 17 Kim HJ, Jung WI, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kang KT, Yeom JS. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. Int J Med Robot 2017;13(3).
• 18 Matsukawa K, Kato T, Yato Y. , et al. Incidence and risk factors of adjacent cranial facet joint violation following pedicle screw insertion using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine 2016; 41 (14) E851-E856
• 19 Moshirfar A, Jenis LG, Spector LR. , et al. Computed tomography evaluation of superior-segment facet-joint violation after pedicle instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a midline surgical approach. Spine 2006; 31 (22) 2624-2629
• 20 Shah RR, Mohammed S, Saifuddin A, Taylor BA. Radiologic evaluation of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation following transpedicular instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine 2003; 28 (03) 272-275
• 21 Hailong Y, Wei L, Zhensheng M, Hongxun S. Computer analysis of the safety of using three different pedicular screw insertion points in the lumbar spine in the Chinese population. Eur Spine J 2007; 16 (05) 619-623
• 22 Miekisiak G, Kornas P, Lekan M, Dacko W, Latka D, Kaczmarczyk J. Accuracy of the free-hand placement of pedicle screws in the lumbosacral spine using a universal entry point: clinical validation. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (04) E194-E198
• 23 Oh CH, Yoon SH, Kim YJ, Hyun D, Park HC. Technical report of free hand pedicle screw placement using the entry points with junction of proximal edge of transverse process and lamina in lumbar spine: analysis of 2601 consecutive screws. Korean J Spine 2013; 10 (01) 7-13
• 24 Archavlis E, Carvi y Nievas M. Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (08) 1731-1740
• 25 Bastian L, Knop C, Lange U, Blauth M. [Transpedicular implantation of screws in the thoracolumbar spine. Results of a survey of methods, frequency and complications]. Orthopade 1999; 28 (08) 693-702
• 26 Wanibuchi M, Komatsu K, Akiyama Y, Mikami T, Mikuni N. Effectiveness of the 3D monitor system for medical education during neurosurgical operation. World Neurosurg 2018; 109: e105-e109