Pedicle subtraction osteotomy with patient-specific instruments.

3D-print Patient-specific Pedicle subtraction osteotomy Sagittal imbalance Spinal osteotomy Spine

Journal

North American Spine Society journal
ISSN: 2666-5484
Titre abrégé: N Am Spine Soc J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918335076906676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Historique:
received: 20 06 2021
revised: 13 07 2021
accepted: 24 08 2021
entrez: 10 2 2022
pubmed: 11 2 2022
medline: 11 2 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Although the utility of patient-specific instruments (PSI) has been well established for complex osteotomies in orthopedic surgery, it is yet to be comparatively analyzed for complex spinal deformity correction, such as pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO). Six thoracolumbar human cadavers were used to perform nine PSOs using the free-hand (FH) technique and nine with PSI (in total 18 PSOs). Osteotomy planes were planned on the basis of preoperative computed tomography (CT). A closing-wedge angle of 30° was targeted for each PSO. Postoperative CT scans were obtained to measure segmental lordosis correction and the deviation from the planned 30° correction as well as the osseous gap of posterior elements. The time required to perform a PSO was 18:22 (range 10:22-26:38) min and 14:14 (range 10:13-22:16) min in the PSI and FH groups, respectively (p = 0.489). The PSI group had a significantly higher lordosis gain (29°, range 23-31° vs. 21°, range 13-34°; p = 0.015). The lordosis gain was significantly more accurate with PSI (deviation angle: 1°; range 0-7°) than with the FH technique (9°; range 4-17°; p = 0.003). PSI achieved a significantly smaller residual osseous gap of the posterior elements (5 mm; range 0-9 mm) than the FH group (11 mm; range 3-27 mm; p = 0.043).With PSI, an angular difference of 3° (range 1-12°), a translational offset of 1 (range 0-6) mm at the level of the lamina, and a vertebral body entry point deviation of 1 (range 0-4) mm was achieved in the osteotomies. PSI-guided PSO can be a more feasible and accurate approach in achieving a planned lordosis angle than the traditional FH technique in a cadaver model. This approach further reduced osseous gaps, potentially promoting higher fusion rates in vivo.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Although the utility of patient-specific instruments (PSI) has been well established for complex osteotomies in orthopedic surgery, it is yet to be comparatively analyzed for complex spinal deformity correction, such as pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO).
METHODS METHODS
Six thoracolumbar human cadavers were used to perform nine PSOs using the free-hand (FH) technique and nine with PSI (in total 18 PSOs). Osteotomy planes were planned on the basis of preoperative computed tomography (CT). A closing-wedge angle of 30° was targeted for each PSO. Postoperative CT scans were obtained to measure segmental lordosis correction and the deviation from the planned 30° correction as well as the osseous gap of posterior elements.
RESULTS RESULTS
The time required to perform a PSO was 18:22 (range 10:22-26:38) min and 14:14 (range 10:13-22:16) min in the PSI and FH groups, respectively (p = 0.489). The PSI group had a significantly higher lordosis gain (29°, range 23-31° vs. 21°, range 13-34°; p = 0.015). The lordosis gain was significantly more accurate with PSI (deviation angle: 1°; range 0-7°) than with the FH technique (9°; range 4-17°; p = 0.003). PSI achieved a significantly smaller residual osseous gap of the posterior elements (5 mm; range 0-9 mm) than the FH group (11 mm; range 3-27 mm; p = 0.043).With PSI, an angular difference of 3° (range 1-12°), a translational offset of 1 (range 0-6) mm at the level of the lamina, and a vertebral body entry point deviation of 1 (range 0-4) mm was achieved in the osteotomies.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
PSI-guided PSO can be a more feasible and accurate approach in achieving a planned lordosis angle than the traditional FH technique in a cadaver model. This approach further reduced osseous gaps, potentially promoting higher fusion rates in vivo.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35141640
doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2021.100075
pii: S2666-5484(21)00027-5
pmc: PMC8820003
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100075

Informations de copyright

© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of North American Spine Society.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Références

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Sep 15;28(18):2093-101
pubmed: 14501920
Cancer Manag Res. 2020 Jul 29;12:6533-6540
pubmed: 32801891
Eur Spine J. 2015 Jun;24(6):1251-8
pubmed: 25018033
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Dec;21(6):994-1003
pubmed: 25325175
Eur Spine J. 2017 Mar;26(3):738-749
pubmed: 27502497
Spine J. 2019 Nov;19(11):1840-1849
pubmed: 31377476
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Jan;41(1):62-8
pubmed: 26689395
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jul 1;25(13):1617-24
pubmed: 10870136
Eur Spine J. 2019 Apr;28(4):798-806
pubmed: 30511245
Spine J. 2013 Oct;13(10):1339-49
pubmed: 23773433
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 1;37(10):845-53
pubmed: 22024904
Neurosurgery. 2015 Mar;76 Suppl 1:S33-41; discussion S41
pubmed: 25692366
World Neurosurg. 2019 Oct;130:e961-e970
pubmed: 31302275
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 1;31(19 Suppl):S171-8
pubmed: 16946635
Spine Deform. 2014 Sep;2(5):358-366
pubmed: 27927333
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Sep 15;30(18):2024-9
pubmed: 16166889
J Exp Orthop. 2020 Feb 27;7(1):7
pubmed: 32107659
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):218-225
pubmed: 30202152
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Sep 15;30(18):2030-7; discussion 2038
pubmed: 16166890
Spine J. 2019 Jan;19(1):79-86
pubmed: 29792999
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Dec 1;35(25):2224-31
pubmed: 21102297
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Mar;86-A Suppl 1:44-50
pubmed: 14996921
Eur Spine J. 2018 Aug;27(8):1981-1991
pubmed: 29808425
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Apr 1;38(7):E394-401
pubmed: 23324927
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jun 1;33(13):1470-7
pubmed: 18520943
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985 Apr;(194):142-52
pubmed: 3978906
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Aug 1;34(17):E599-606
pubmed: 19644319
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Jun 1;38(13):E803-12
pubmed: 23722572
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Aug;21(2):231-8
pubmed: 24785974
J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Jun;16(6):539-46
pubmed: 22462571
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Feb 15;31(4):485-92
pubmed: 16481963
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Sep 15;32(20):2189-97
pubmed: 17873810
Eur Spine J. 2015 Jan;24 Suppl 1:S66-71
pubmed: 25391627
J Hand Surg Am. 2020 Oct;45(10):918-923
pubmed: 32711962
Eur Spine J. 2001 Aug;10(4):314-9
pubmed: 11563617
JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2020 Feb 03;10(1):
pubmed: 32368407
World Neurosurg. 2018 Nov;119:113-117
pubmed: 30077023
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Aug;29(8):e270-6
pubmed: 25932528
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Mar 15;27(6):612-8
pubmed: 11884909
Knee. 2016 Mar;23(2):186-90
pubmed: 26782300

Auteurs

Marco D Burkhard (MD)

Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Switzerland.

Daniel Suter (D)

Research in Orthopedic Computer Science (ROCS), University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Bastian Sigrist (B)

Research in Orthopedic Computer Science (ROCS), University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Philipp Fuernstahl (P)

Research in Orthopedic Computer Science (ROCS), University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Mazda Farshad (M)

Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Switzerland.

José Miguel Spirig (JM)

Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH