Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 351–357 | Cite as

Comparison between free-hand and O-arm-based navigated posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly cohorts with three-level lumbar degenerative disease

  • Yucheng Wang
  • Kangwu Chen
  • Hao Chen
  • Kai Zhang
  • Jian Lu
  • Haiqing MaoEmail author
  • Huilin YangEmail author
Original Paper
  • 173 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This retrospective cohort study aims to evaluate the effects of introducing the O-arm-based navigation technique into the traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedure treating elderly patients with three-level lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

Forty-one consecutive elderly patients were enrolled according to the criteria. There were 21 patients in the free-hand group and 20 patients in the O-arm group. Both two groups underwent the PLIF with or without the O-arm-based navigation technique. The demographic features, clinical data and outcomes, and radiological information were collected for further analysis.

Results

The average follow-up time was 18.3 (range, 12–28) months in the free-hand group and 16.7 (range, 12–24) months in the O-arm group. Comparison between two groups revealed no significant difference regarding demographic features. The operation time took in the navigation group was significantly less than that in the free-hand group (222.55 ± 38.00 mins versus 255.19 ± 40.26 mins, P < 0.05). Both VAS and ODI were improved post-operatively in two groups while comparison between groups showed no difference. The accuracy rate of pedicle screw positioning was 88.7% in the free-hand group to 96.9% in the O-arm group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The O-arm-based navigation is an efficacious auxiliary technique which could significantly improve the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion, especially in cases of patients with complex anatomic degenerative diseases, without sacrificing the feasibility and reliable outcome of traditional PLIF.

Keywords

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion O-arm-based navigation Three-level Elderly patients Lumbar degenerative disease 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion: I Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rafi S, Munshi N, Abbas A, Shaikh RH, Hashmi I (2016) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hybrid instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. J Neurosci Rural Pract 7:550–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Sides B, Blanke K (2004) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2040–2048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DiPaola CP, Molinari RW (2008) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mehdian H, Kothari M (2017) PLIF and modified TLIF using the PLIF approach. Eur Spine J 26:420–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C (1986) Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 203:7–17Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K (1995) Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:1410–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laine T, Lund T, Ylikoski M, Lohikoski J, Schlenzka D (2000) Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with and without computer assistance: a randomised controlled clinical study in 100 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J 9:235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15:11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang Y, Wen L, Zhang J, Yan G, Zhou Y, Huang B (2017) Three-dimensional printing and computer navigation assisted hemipelvectomy for en bloc resection of osteochondroma: a case report. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e6414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schatlo B, Molliqaj G, Cuvinciuc V, Kotowski M, Schaller K, Tessitore E (2014) Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: a matched cohort comparison. J Neurosurg Spine 20:636–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gonschorek O, Hauck S, Spiegl U, Weiß T, Pätzold R, Bühren V (2011) O-arm(®)-based spinal navigation and intraoperative 3D-imaging: first experiences. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 37:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holly LT, Foley KT (2007) Image guidance in spine surgery. Orthop Clin N Am 38:451–461 abstract viiiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim BD, Hsu WK, De Oliveira GS, Saha S, Kim JY (2014) Operative duration as an independent risk factor for postoperative complications in single-level lumbar fusion: an analysis of 4588 surgical cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:510–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shin MH, Hur JW, Ryu KS, Park CK (2015) Prospective comparison study between the fluoroscopy-guided and navigation coupled with O-arm-guided pedicle screw placement in the thoracic and lumbosacral spines. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:E347–E351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silbermann J, Riese F, Allam Y, Reichert T, Koeppert H, Gutberlet M (2011) Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw placement in lumbar and sacral spine: comparison between free-hand and O-arm based navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 20:875–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gelalis ID, Paschos NK, Pakos EE, Politis AN, Arnaoutoglou CM, Karageorgos AC, Ploumis A, Xenakis TA (2012) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 21:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lekovic GP, Potts EA, Karahalios DG, Hall G (2007) A comparison of two techniques in image-guided thoracic pedicle screw placement: a retrospective study of 37 patients and 277 pedicle screws. J Neurosurg Spine 7:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhou X, Liu Y, Zhou S, Fu XX, Yu XL, Fu CL, Zhang B, Dai M (2016) The correlation between radiographic and pathologic grading of lumbar facet joint degeneration. BMC Med Imaging 16:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang C, Yang M, Chen Y, Wei X, Ni H, Chen Z, Li J, Bai Y, Zhu X, Li M (2015) Radiographic parameters in adult degenerative scoliosis and different parameters between sagittal balanced and imbalanced ADS patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jin-Tao Q, Yu T, Mei W, Xu-Dong T, Tian-Jian Z, Guo-Hua S, Lei C, Yue H, Zi-Tian W, Yue Z (2015) Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 24:1058–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mroz TE, Abdullah KG, Steinmetz MP, Klineberg EO, Lieberman IH (2011) Radiation exposure to the surgeon during percutaneous pedicle screw placement. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:264–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow UniversitySuzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations