Pedicle screw placement accuracy using ultra-low radiation imaging with image enhancement versus conventional fluoroscopy in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an internally randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE A previous study found that ultra-low radiation imaging (ULRI) with image enhancement significantly decreases radiation exposure by roughly 75% for both the patient and operating room personnel during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) (p < 0.001). However, no clinical data exist on whether this imaging modality negatively impacts patient outcomes. Thus, the goal of this randomized controlled trial was to assess pedicle screw placement accuracy with ULRI with image enhancement compared with conventional, standard-dose fluoroscopy for patients undergoing single-level MIS-TLIF. METHODS An institutional review board-approved, prospective internally randomized controlled trial was performed to compare breach rates for pedicle screw placement performed using ULRI with image enhancement versus conventional fluoroscopy. For cannulation and pedicle screw placement, surgery on 1 side (left vs right) was randomly assigned to be performed under ULRI. Screws on the opposite side were placed under conventional fluoroscopy, thereby allowing each patient to serve as his/her own control. In addition to standard intraoperative images to check screw placement, each patient underwent postoperative CT. Three experienced neurosurgeons independently analyzed the images and were blinded as to which imaging modality was used to assist with each screw placement. Screw placement was analyzed for pedicle breach (lateral vs medial and Grade 0 [< 2.0 mm], Grade 1 [2.0-4.0 mm], or Grade 2 [> 4.0 mm]), appropriate screw depth (50%-75% of the vertebral body's anteroposterior dimension), and appropriate screw angle (within 10° of the pedicle angle). The effective breach rate was calculated as the percentage of screws evaluated as breached > 2.0 mm medially or postoperatively symptomatic. RESULTS Twenty-three consecutive patients underwent single-level MIS-TLIF, and their sides were randomly assigned to receive ULRI. No patient had immediate postoperative complications (e.g., neurological decline, need for hardware repositioning). On CT confirmation, 4 screws that had K-wire placement and cannulation under ULRI and screw placement under conventional fluoroscopy showed deviations. There were 2 breaches that deviated medially but both were Grade 0 (< 2.0 mm). Similarly, 2 breaches occurred that were Grade 1 (> 2.0 mm) but both deviated laterally. Therefore, the effective breach rate (breach > 2.0 mm deviated medially) was unchanged in both imaging groups (0% using either ULRI or conventional fluoroscopy; p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS ULRI with image enhancement does not compromise accuracy during pedicle screw placement compared with conventional fluoroscopy while it significantly decreases radiation exposure to both the patient and operating room personnel.

[1]  Kern Singh,et al.  Patient knowledge regarding radiation exposure from spinal imaging. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[2]  Timothy Y. Wang,et al.  Internally Randomized Control Trial of Radiation Exposure Using Ultra-low Radiation Imaging Versus Traditional C-arm Fluoroscopy for Patients Undergoing Single-level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2017, Spine.

[3]  Zachary A. Abecassis,et al.  An Outcome and Cost Analysis Comparing Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Intraoperative Fluoroscopy versus Computed Tomography-Guided Navigation. , 2016, World neurosurgery.

[4]  K. P. Kim,et al.  How High Are Radiation-related Risks in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared With Traditional Open Surgery?: A Meta-analysis and Dose Estimates of Ionizing Radiation , 2015, Clinical spine surgery.

[5]  Timothy Y. Wang,et al.  An Internally Randomized Control Trial of Radiation Exposure Using Ultra-Low Radiation Imaging (ULRI) Versus Traditional C-arm Fluoroscopy for Patients Undergoing Single-level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF). , 2016, Spine.

[6]  L. Tumialán,et al.  Prospective Evaluation of a Low-Dose Radiation Fluoroscopy Protocol for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2015, Operative neurosurgery.

[7]  R. Betz,et al.  Inter- and Intra-Observer Reliability of Measurement of Pedicle Screw Breach Assessed by Postoperative CT Scans , 2014, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[8]  G. Akdemir,et al.  Accuracy of fluoroscopically-assisted pedicle screw placement: analysis of 1,218 screws in 198 patients. , 2014, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[9]  B. Meyer,et al.  Radiation Exposure to the Surgeon and the Patient During Posterior Lumbar Spinal Instrumentation: A Prospective Randomized Comparison of Navigated Versus Non-navigated Freehand Techniques , 2014, Spine.

[10]  K. Schaller,et al.  Clinically relevant complications related to pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgery and their management: a literature review of 35,630 pedicle screws. , 2011, Neurosurgical focus.

[11]  J. Voyadzis,et al.  The Learning Curve in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery , 2011 .

[12]  Ping Zhou,et al.  Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[13]  R. Watkins,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Image-Guided Spine Surgery , 2010, The open orthopaedics journal.

[14]  C. Ohaegbulam Minimally Invasive Transmuscular Pedicle Screw Fixation of the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine , 2008 .

[15]  Yung Park,et al.  Comparison of One-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed With a Minimally Invasive Approach or a Traditional Open Approach , 2007, Spine.

[16]  Constantin Schizas,et al.  Pedicle Screw Placement Accuracy: A Meta-analysis , 2007, Spine.

[17]  Bernhard Meyer,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transmuscular Pedicle Screw Fixation of the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine , 2006, Neurosurgery.

[18]  M. O’Brien,et al.  Radiation Exposure During Pedicle Screw Placement in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Is Fluoroscopy Safe? , 2006, Spine.

[19]  Lothar Kinzl,et al.  Does Computer-Assisted Spine Surgery Reduce Intraoperative Radiation Doses? , 2006, Spine.

[20]  Giuseppe Mastrangelo,et al.  Increased cancer risk among surgeons in an orthopaedic hospital. , 2005, Occupational medicine.

[21]  A. Alho,et al.  Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion: A prospective CT study in 30 low back patients , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[22]  G. Lowery,et al.  Posterior percutaneous spine instrumentation , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[23]  S. Gertzbein,et al.  Accuracy of Pedicular Screw Placement In Vivo , 1990, Spine.

[24]  A. Reynolds,et al.  Quantitative anatomy of the thoracolumbar epidural space. , 1985, Neurosurgery.