Comparison between free-hand and O-arm-based navigated posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly cohorts with three-level lumbar degenerative disease
- 173 Downloads
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.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsPosterior lumbar interbody fusion O-arm-based navigation Three-level Elderly patients Lumbar degenerative disease
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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.
- 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.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
- 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