Comparison of the Pedicle Screws Placement Between Electronic Conductivity Device and Normal Pedicle Finder in Posterior Surgery of Scoliosis

Study Design: Prospective randomized clinical trial. Objective: To compare the accuracy and time using of pedicle screw placement between electronic conductivity device (ECD) and normal pedicle finder (NPF) in posterior surgery of scoliosis, through a randomized clinical trial. Summary of Background Data: Pedicle screw insertion for scoliosis correction can be associated with increased pedicle perforations. The malposition rates using various techniques in different region of the spine have been reported to occur with a frequency of 3.3%–43%. An ECD has been reported in spine surgeries, but its accuracy and surgical time comparing with NPF in the presence of scoliosis has not been reported. Methods: The 42 patients of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with average major Cobb angle of 55.3±7 degrees (range, 45–78 degrees), who received posterior correction surgeries using pedicle screws system only were divided into 2 groups by random: group NPF (22 patients); and group ECD (20 patients). NPF group had 332 screws and ECD group had 362 screws. The 2 groups were compared for accuracy of screw placement, time for screw insertion, and the number of times the C-arm had to be brought into the field. Results: There were 47 (14.2%) pedicle perforation in the NPF group as compared with only 15 (4.1%) in the ECD group (P<0.001). Although in different region of the spine, screw accuracy showed discrepant statistical result, with upper (T1–T3), middle (T4–T7), and lower thoracic (T8–T10) comparison showing significant statistical difference (P=0.010, 0.001, and 0.041, respectively) and thoracolumbar (T11–L2) and lower lumbar (L3–L5) comparison showing no significant statistical difference (P=0.278 and 0.292, respectively). Average screw insertion time in the NPF group was 241±61 seconds compared with 204±33 seconds in the ECD group (P=0.009). The C-arm had to be moved into the operation field on an average of 1.59±0.67 times in the NPF group compared with 1.20±0.52 in the ECD group (P=0.040). Conclusions: ECD increases pedicle screw accuracy, especially in T1–T10, and reduces insertion time and radiation in posterior adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

[1]  R. Winter,et al.  Complications associated with pedicle screws. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  J W Frymoyer,et al.  An internal fixator for posterior application to short segments of the thoracic, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine. Design and testing. , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  S. Wientroub,et al.  The Contribution of an Electronic Conductivity Device to the Safety of Pedicle Screw Insertion in Scoliosis Surgery , 2011, Spine.

[4]  R. Gaines The Use of Pedicle-Screw Internal Fixation for the Operative Treatment of Spinal Disorders* , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  C Bolger,et al.  Image-guided surgery: applications to the cervical and thoracic spine and a review of the first 120 procedures. , 2000, Journal of neurosurgery.

[6]  G. Rao,et al.  Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability of Computed Tomography in Assessment of Thoracic Pedicle Screw Placement , 2003, Spine.

[7]  T. Laine,et al.  Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with and without computer assistance: a randomised controlled clinical study in 100 consecutive patients , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[8]  G. Saillant,et al.  Electrical conductivity measurement: a new technique to detect iatrogenic initial pedicle perforation , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[9]  C. K. Lee,et al.  Comparison of Cotrel-Dubousset pedicle screws and hooks in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis , 1994, International Orthopaedics.

[10]  Ming Li,et al.  Learning curve of computer-assisted navigation system in spine surgery. , 2010, Chinese medical journal.

[11]  Manabu Ito,et al.  Accuracy Analysis of Pedicle Screw Placement in Posterior Scoliosis Surgery: Comparison Between Conventional Fluoroscopic and Computer-Assisted Technique , 2007, Spine.

[12]  D. Polly,et al.  Accuracy of Thoracic Pedicle Screws in Patients with and Without Coronal Plane Spinal Deformities , 2002, Spine.

[13]  J H Kim,et al.  Thoracic Pedicle Screw Fixation in Spinal Deformities: Are They Really Safe? , 2001, Spine.

[14]  L. Lenke,et al.  Pedicle Morphology In Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Is Pedicle Fixation an Anatomically Viable Technique? , 2000, Spine.

[15]  B. T. Field,et al.  A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  M. Jendrisak Spontaneous abdominal aortic rupture from erosion by a lumbar spine fixation device: a case report. , 1986, Surgery.

[17]  D J Quint,et al.  Stereotactic Navigation for Placement of Pedicle Screws in the Thoracic Spine , 2001, Neurosurgery.

[18]  W. Young,et al.  Intraoperative stimulation of pedicle screws: a new method for verification of screw placement. , 1995, Surgical neurology.

[19]  H Labelle,et al.  Comparative results between conventional and computer-assisted pedicle screw installation in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. , 2000, Spine.

[20]  R. Schmidt,et al.  In vitro study of accuracy of cervical pedicle screw insertion using an electronic conductivity device (ATPS part III) , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[21]  Randal R. Betz,et al.  PediGuard™: A Solution for the Challenges of Pedicle Screw Placement , 2007 .

[22]  J. Drake,et al.  Technique for Drilling Instrument Monitoring Electrical Conductivity in Pediatric Cervical Spine Screw Insertion: A Preliminary Report , 2009, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[23]  L. Lenke,et al.  Free Hand Pedicle Screw Placement in the Thoracic Spine: Is it Safe? , 2004, Spine.

[24]  R. Hedlund,et al.  Horizontal plane morphometry of normal and scoliotic vertebrae , 1995, European Spine Journal.