Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion: I Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 7:550–553

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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) 29:2040–2048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. DiPaola CP, Molinari RW (2008) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:130–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mehdian H, Kothari M (2017) PLIF and modified TLIF using the PLIF approach. Eur Spine J 26:420–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C (1986) Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 203:7–17

  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) 20:1410–1418

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 9:235–240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15:11–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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:e6414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 20:636–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 37:99–108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Holly LT, Foley KT (2007) Image guidance in spine surgery. Orthop Clin N Am 38:451–461 abstract viii

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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) 39:510–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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–E351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 20:875–881

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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 21:247–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 7:393–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 16:27

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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:e1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 24:1058–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 24:264–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

    Yucheng Wang, Kangwu Chen, Hao Chen, Kai Zhang, Jian Lu, Haiqing Mao & Huilin Yang

Authors
  1. Yucheng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kangwu Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kai Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jian Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Haiqing Mao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Huilin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Haiqing Mao or Huilin Yang.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Yucheng Wang and Kangwu Chen and equal contributors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Chen, K., Chen, H. et al. Comparison between free-hand and O-arm-based navigated posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly cohorts with three-level lumbar degenerative disease. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 43, 351–357 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4005-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4005-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation