English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background and Objectives: In the literature, spinal navigation and robot-assisted surgery improved screw placement accuracy, but the majority of studies only qualitatively report on screw positioning within the vertebra. We sought to evaluate screw placement accuracy in relation to a preoperative trajectory plan by three-dimensional quantification to elucidate technical benefits of navigation for lumbar pedicle screws. Materials and Methods: In 27 CT-navigated instrumentations for degenerative disease, a dedicated intraoperative 3D-trajectory plan was created for all screws. Final screw positions were defined on postoperative CT. Trajectory plans and final screw positions were co-registered and quantitatively compared computing minimal absolute differences (MAD) of screw head and tip points (mm) and screw axis (degree) in 3D-space, respectively. Differences were evaluated with consideration of the navigation target registration error. Clinical acceptability of screws was evaluated using the Gertzbein−Robbins (GR) classification. Results: Data included 140 screws covering levels L1-S1. While screw placement was clinically acceptable in all cases (GR grade A and B in 112 (80%) and 28 (20%) cases, respectively), implanted screws showed considerable deviation compared to the trajectory plan: Mean axis deviation was 6.3° ± 3.6°, screw head and tip points showed mean MAD of 5.2 ± 2.4 mm and 5.5 ± 2.7 mm, respectively. Deviations significantly exceeded the mean navigation registration error of 0.87 ± 0.22 mm (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: Screw placement was clinically acceptable in all screws after navigated placement but nevertheless, considerable deviation in implanted screws was noted compared to the initial trajectory plan. Our data provides a 3D-quantitative benchmark for screw accuracy achievable by CT-navigation in routine spine surgery and suggests a framework for objective comparison of screw outcome after navigated or robot-assisted procedures. Factors contributing to screw deviations should be considered to assure optimal surgical results when applying navigation for spinal instrumentation.

CT-Navigated Spinal Instrumentations–Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Screw Placement Accuracy in Relation to a Screw Trajectory Plan