Cargando…

Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have confirmed the feasibility of the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) technique. However, there are few reports on spinous process violation and screw penetration during the screw insertion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of spinous process violat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Lilian, Tian, Naifeng, Yang, Jian, Ni, Wenfei, Jin, Liya
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32781995
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03535-4
_version_ 1783570021226643456
author Zhang, Lilian
Tian, Naifeng
Yang, Jian
Ni, Wenfei
Jin, Liya
author_facet Zhang, Lilian
Tian, Naifeng
Yang, Jian
Ni, Wenfei
Jin, Liya
author_sort Zhang, Lilian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Previous studies have confirmed the feasibility of the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) technique. However, there are few reports on spinous process violation and screw penetration during the screw insertion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of spinous process violation and screw penetration through the pedicle during CBT screw insertion. METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) scans with normal lumbar structures were consecutively obtained and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions of the lumbar spine were created. Bilateral CBT screw placement was simulated on each segment using a screw diameter of 4.5 mm, 5.0 mm, or 5.5 mm. Incidences of these complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were enrolled. Spinous process violation was observed in 68.3, 53.3, 25.5, 1.7, and 0% from L1 to L5, respectively, using 4.5 mm screws. A significant difference was found among the five segments but this was unconnected to gender or screw diameter. The incidence of screw penetration through the inner wall decreased from L1 to L4; in turn, L1 (16.7–35.5%), L2 (12.7–34.4%), L3 (2.8–23.8%) and L4 (1.1–6.7%). This trend was reversed in L5 (6.7–16.7%). Moreover, screw penetration through the outer wall was rare. The incidence of screw penetration varied with screw size as well as lumbar level, but not with gender. CONCLUSIONS: There are more difficulties of CBT screw fixation in upper lumbar spine. The low rate of screw penetration, using 4.5 mm screws, suggests the safety for CBT fixation in the lumbar spine. Larger screws (5.0 mm or 5.5 mm) are more recommended for use in the lower lumbar spine. Moreover, CBT fixation in L5 deserves greater attention because of the unique morphology of the pedicle.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7422524
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74225242020-08-21 Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine Zhang, Lilian Tian, Naifeng Yang, Jian Ni, Wenfei Jin, Liya BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Previous studies have confirmed the feasibility of the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) technique. However, there are few reports on spinous process violation and screw penetration during the screw insertion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of spinous process violation and screw penetration through the pedicle during CBT screw insertion. METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) scans with normal lumbar structures were consecutively obtained and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions of the lumbar spine were created. Bilateral CBT screw placement was simulated on each segment using a screw diameter of 4.5 mm, 5.0 mm, or 5.5 mm. Incidences of these complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were enrolled. Spinous process violation was observed in 68.3, 53.3, 25.5, 1.7, and 0% from L1 to L5, respectively, using 4.5 mm screws. A significant difference was found among the five segments but this was unconnected to gender or screw diameter. The incidence of screw penetration through the inner wall decreased from L1 to L4; in turn, L1 (16.7–35.5%), L2 (12.7–34.4%), L3 (2.8–23.8%) and L4 (1.1–6.7%). This trend was reversed in L5 (6.7–16.7%). Moreover, screw penetration through the outer wall was rare. The incidence of screw penetration varied with screw size as well as lumbar level, but not with gender. CONCLUSIONS: There are more difficulties of CBT screw fixation in upper lumbar spine. The low rate of screw penetration, using 4.5 mm screws, suggests the safety for CBT fixation in the lumbar spine. Larger screws (5.0 mm or 5.5 mm) are more recommended for use in the lower lumbar spine. Moreover, CBT fixation in L5 deserves greater attention because of the unique morphology of the pedicle. BioMed Central 2020-08-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7422524/ /pubmed/32781995 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03535-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zhang, Lilian
Tian, Naifeng
Yang, Jian
Ni, Wenfei
Jin, Liya
Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine
title Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine
title_full Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine
title_fullStr Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine
title_full_unstemmed Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine
title_short Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine
title_sort risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32781995
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03535-4
work_keys_str_mv AT zhanglilian riskofpedicleandspinousprocessviolationduringcorticalbonetrajectoryscrewplacementinthelumbarspine
AT tiannaifeng riskofpedicleandspinousprocessviolationduringcorticalbonetrajectoryscrewplacementinthelumbarspine
AT yangjian riskofpedicleandspinousprocessviolationduringcorticalbonetrajectoryscrewplacementinthelumbarspine
AT niwenfei riskofpedicleandspinousprocessviolationduringcorticalbonetrajectoryscrewplacementinthelumbarspine
AT jinliya riskofpedicleandspinousprocessviolationduringcorticalbonetrajectoryscrewplacementinthelumbarspine