STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial (level I evidence). OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of non-navigation and Iso-C based navigation in pedicle screw fixation in thoracic spine deformities. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Thoracic pedicle screw insertion for spinal deformity correction can be associated with increased pedicle breaches. Iso-C based navigation has been reported to improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, but its use in the presence of deformity has not been reported. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with scoliosis and 6 patients with kyphosis had a total of 478 thoracic pedicle screws. The average Cobb angle was 58.4 degrees +/- 8 degrees (range 50 degrees -80 degrees), and the mean kyphotic angle was 54.6 degrees +/- 4 degrees (range 51 degrees -76 degrees). By random allocation, 17 patients had screw insertion under navigation (242 screws) and 16 under fluoroscopic control (236 screws). The 2 groups were compared for accuracy of screw placement, time for screw insertion, and the number of times the C-arm had to be brought into the field. Two independent blinded observers determined accuracy using postoperative computed tomography assessments. RESULTS: There were 54 (23%) pedicle breaches in the non-navigation group as compared to only 5 (2%) in the navigation group (P < 0.001). Thirty-eight screws (16%) in the non-navigation group had penetrated the anterior or lateral cortex compared to 2 screws (0.8%) in the navigation group. Average screw insertion time in the non-navigation group was 4.61 +/- 1.05 minutes (range 1.8-6.5) compared to 2.37 +/- 0.72 minutes (range 1.16-4.5) in navigation group (P < 0.01). The C-arm had to be moved into the operation field on an average of 1.5 +/- 0.25 times (range 1-3) per screw. With single screening data, an average of 11.4 pedicles (range 9-14) could be visualized without necessity to bring the C-arm into operating field again. CONCLUSIONS: Iso-C navigation increases accuracy, and reduces surgical time and radiation in thoracic deformity correction surgeries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rajasekaran et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: