Robotic, fluoroscopic or EMG assisted pedicle screw insertion. A CT based comparative study

Détails

ID Serval
serval:BIB_1147108583C0
Type
Actes de conférence (partie): contribution originale à la littérature scientifique, publiée à l'occasion de conférences scientifiques, dans un ouvrage de compte-rendu (proceedings), ou dans l'édition spéciale d'un journal reconnu (conference proceedings).
Sous-type
Abstract (résumé de présentation): article court qui reprend les éléments essentiels présentés à l'occasion d'une conférence scientifique dans un poster ou lors d'une intervention orale.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Robotic, fluoroscopic or EMG assisted pedicle screw insertion. A CT based comparative study
Titre de la conférence
Annual meeting of the Swiss Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
Auteur(s)
Schizas C., Thein E., Pralong E., Debatisse D., Kulik G.
Adresse
St. Gallen - Switzerland, 30 June - 2 July 2010
ISBN
1424-7860
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2010
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
140
Série
Swiss Medical Weekly
Pages
12S-13S
Langue
anglais
Notes
Meeting Abstract
Résumé
Introduction: In order to improve safety of pedicle screw placement several techniques have been developed. More recently robotically assisted pedicle insertion has been introduced aiming at increasing accuracy. The aim of this study was to compare this new technique with the two main pedicle insertion techniques in our unit namely fluoroscopically assisted vs EMG aided insertion.
Material and methods: A total of 382 screws (78 thoracic,304 lumbar) were introduced in 64 patients (m/f = 1.37, equally distributed between insertion technique groups) by a single experienced spinal surgeon. From those, 64 (10 thoracic, 54 lumbar) were introduced in 11 patients using a miniature robotic device based on pre operative CT images under fluoroscopic control. 142 (4 thoracic, 138 lumbar) screws were introduced using lateral fluoroscopy in 27 patients while 176 (64 thoracic, 112 lumbar) screws
in 26 patients were inserted using both fluoroscopy and EMG monitoring. There was no difference in the distribution of scoliotic spines between the 3 groups (n = 13). Screw position was assessed by an independent observer on CTs in axial, sagittal and coronal planes using the Rampersaud A to D classification. Data of lumbar and thoracic screws were processed separately as well as data obtained from axial, sagittal and coronal CT planes.
Results: Intra- and interobserver reliability of the Rampersaud classification was moderate, (0.35 and 0.45 respectively) being the least good on axial plane. The total number of misplaced screws (C&D grades) was generally low (12 thoracic and 12 lumbar screws). Misplacement rates were same in straight and scoliotic spines. The only difference in misplacement rates was observed on axial and
coronal images in the EMG assisted thoracic screw group with a higher proportion of C or D grades (p <0.05) in that group. Recorded compound muscle action potentials (CMAP) values of the inserted screws were 30.4 mA for the robot and 24.9mA for the freehand technique with a CI of 3.8 of the mean difference of 5.5 mA.
Discussion: Robotic placement did improve the placement of thoracic screws but not that of lumbar screws possibly because our misplacement rates in general near that of published navigation series. Robotically assisted spine surgery might therefore enhance the safety of screw placement in particular in training settings were different users at various stages of their learning curve are involved in pedicle instrumentation.
Web of science
Création de la notice
13/10/2010 15:10
Dernière modification de la notice
20/08/2019 12:38
Données d'usage