Accuracy of a patient-specific template for pedicle screw placement compared with a conventional method: a meta-analysis

IntroductionAccurate placement of pedicle screws in spine surgery is a challenge for surgeons. Patient-specific template techniques have the potential for improving the accuracy of screw placement. The target of this analysis was to investigate differences in terms of accuracy of pedicle screw insertion between patient-specific template assistance and the conventional free-hand method for reconstruction of spinal stability.MaterialsThe Cochrane Library, Ovid, Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE and CNKI database were searched until February 2017 for a systematic review, and several comparative studies were screened for comparisons of accuracies of pedicle screw insertion with patient-specific assistance and conventional methods. Primary outcomes extracted from papers that met the selection criterion were expressed as odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes with a 95% confidence interval. A χ2 test and I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity.ResultsA total of ten RCTs and two prospective cohort studies were finally chosen for the analysis of accuracy rates. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. There were obvious differences between them, and the accuracy rate of screw implantation among a patient-specific template assistance set was statistically significantly higher than the conventional free-hand set (OR 95% CI 3.78–6.41, P < 0.01); in vitro: OR 95% CI 3.93–7.42, P < 0.01; in vivo: OR 95% CI 2.49–6.44, P < 0.01.ConclusionsThe template-assisted technique is superior to the conventional method for the reduction of pedicle violation. The template-assisted technique is a promising technique that should be considered as another available navigation tool for surgeons to improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. As an available technique for emerging applications in spine surgeries, this technique will face challenges but ultimately prove successfully.

[1]  William W. Lu,et al.  A Novel Patient-Specific Navigational Template for Cervical Pedicle Screw Placement , 2009, Spine.

[2]  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.

[3]  K. Radermacher,et al.  Computer assisted orthopaedic surgery with image based individual templates. , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  陈玉兵.  Empirical study of transpedicular screw placement assisted by digital navigation templates in the thoracic spines , 2011 .

[5]  R. Mannion,et al.  Improving accuracy and reducing radiation exposure in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. , 2010, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[6]  Ahmed A. Aoude,et al.  Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review , 2015, European Spine Journal.

[7]  Matjaz Merc,et al.  A multi-level rapid prototyping drill guide template reduces the perforation risk of pedicle screw placement in the lumbar and sacral spine , 2013, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

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

[9]  W. Tian,et al.  Accuracy of lower cervical pedicle screw placement with assistance of distinct navigation systems: a human cadaveric study , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[10]  I. Drstvenšek,et al.  Use of rapid prototyping drill guide templatefor pedicle screw placement , 2013 .

[11]  Le Xie,et al.  A novel computer-assisted drill guide template for thoracic pedicle screw placement: a cadaveric study , 2011, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[12]  Matjaz Merc,et al.  Error rate of multi-level rapid prototyping trajectories for pedicle screw placement in lumbar and sacral spine. , 2014, Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi.

[13]  Jie Mi,et al.  The Utility of a Digital Virtual Template for Junior Surgeons in Pedicle Screw Placement in the Lumbar Spine , 2016, BioMed research international.

[14]  Manuel Moser,et al.  Accuracy of patient-specific template-guided vs. free-hand fluoroscopically controlled pedicle screw placement in the thoracic and lumbar spine: a randomized cadaveric study , 2017 .

[15]  S. Hughes,et al.  Infection in the operating room. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[16]  Yichuan Ma,et al.  Individualized 3D printing navigation template for pedicle screw fixation in upper cervical spine , 2017, PloS one.

[17]  M. Othman,et al.  Anaerobic Codigestion of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge with Food Waste: A Case Study , 2016, BioMed research international.

[18]  Dongsheng Zhou,et al.  Comparison of Isocentric C-Arm 3-Dimensional Navigation and Conventional Fluoroscopy for C1 Lateral Mass and C2 Pedicle Screw Placement for Atlantoaxial Instability , 2013, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[19]  Y. Akpolat,et al.  Preventing Instrumentation Failure in Three-Column Spinal Osteotomy: Biomechanical Analysis of Rod Configuration , 2016, Spine deformity.

[20]  Xin Li,et al.  [Surgical application of pedicle drill template navigation technology for complicated scoliosis]. , 2014, Zhonghua yi xue za zhi.

[21]  R. Mannion,et al.  A Comparison of CT-based Navigation Techniques for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement , 2011, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[22]  Tomiharu Matsushita,et al.  Additive-manufactured patient-specific titanium templates for thoracic pedicle screw placement: novel design with reduced contact area , 2016, European Spine Journal.

[23]  A. Prescher,et al.  Computer-Assisted Orthopedic Surgery With Individual Templates and Comparison to Conventional Operation Method , 2001, Spine.

[24]  F. La Marca,et al.  Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis. , 2013, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[25]  M. Merc,et al.  Lumbar and sacral pedicle screw placement using a template does not improve the midterm pain and disability outcome in comparison with free-hand method , 2017, European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.

[26]  Alexander Mason,et al.  The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. , 2014, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[27]  W. Spiker,et al.  A comparative study on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement assisted by personalized rapid prototyping template between pre- and post-operation in patients with relatively normal mid-upper thoracic spine , 2016, European Spine Journal.

[28]  Mark A Rivkin,et al.  Thoracolumbar instrumentation with CT-guided navigation (O-arm) in 270 consecutive patients: accuracy rates and lessons learned. , 2014, Neurosurgical focus.

[29]  Yansheng Li,et al.  Preliminary application of a multi-level 3D printing drill guide template for pedicle screw placement in severe and rigid scoliosis , 2017, European Spine Journal.