Angulation error assessment for the trajectory in the anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopic views during percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar discectomy.
Angulation error assessment
Cephalad angulation
Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy
Trajectory
Virtual fluoroscopy
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 May 2023
25 May 2023
Historique:
received:
29
08
2022
accepted:
03
05
2023
medline:
29
5
2023
pubmed:
26
5
2023
entrez:
25
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral fluoroscopies are often used to evaluate the intraoperative location and angulation of the trajectory in percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar discectomy (PETLD). Although the location of the trajectory shown in fluoroscopy is absolutely accurate, the angulation is not always reliable. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the angle shown in the AP and lateral fluoroscopic views. A technical study was performed to assess the angulation errors of PETLD trajectories shown in AP and lateral fluoroscopic views. After reconstructing a lumbar CT image, a virtual trajectory was placed into the intervertebral foramen with gradient-changing coronal angulations of the cephalad angle plane (CACAP). For each angulation, virtual AP and lateral fluoroscopies were taken, and the cephalad angles (CA) of the trajectory shown in the AP and lateral fluoroscopic views, which indicated the coronal CA and the sagittal CA, respectively, were measured. The angular relationships among the real CA, CACAP, coronal CA, and sagittal CA were further demonstrated with formulae. In PETLD, the coronal CA is approximately equal to the real CA, with a small angle difference and percentage error, whereas the sagittal CA shows a rather large angle difference and percentage error. The AP view is more reliable than the lateral view in determining the CA of the PETLD trajectory.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral fluoroscopies are often used to evaluate the intraoperative location and angulation of the trajectory in percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar discectomy (PETLD). Although the location of the trajectory shown in fluoroscopy is absolutely accurate, the angulation is not always reliable. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the angle shown in the AP and lateral fluoroscopic views.
METHODS
METHODS
A technical study was performed to assess the angulation errors of PETLD trajectories shown in AP and lateral fluoroscopic views. After reconstructing a lumbar CT image, a virtual trajectory was placed into the intervertebral foramen with gradient-changing coronal angulations of the cephalad angle plane (CACAP). For each angulation, virtual AP and lateral fluoroscopies were taken, and the cephalad angles (CA) of the trajectory shown in the AP and lateral fluoroscopic views, which indicated the coronal CA and the sagittal CA, respectively, were measured. The angular relationships among the real CA, CACAP, coronal CA, and sagittal CA were further demonstrated with formulae.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In PETLD, the coronal CA is approximately equal to the real CA, with a small angle difference and percentage error, whereas the sagittal CA shows a rather large angle difference and percentage error.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The AP view is more reliable than the lateral view in determining the CA of the PETLD trajectory.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37231389
doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06564-x
pii: 10.1186/s12891-023-06564-x
pmc: PMC10210393
doi:
Substances chimiques
acrylic acid-allyl pentaerythritol copolymer
30049-31-1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
419Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 Apr 1;26(7):231-240
pubmed: 29498958
J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Feb 8;12(1):25
pubmed: 28178992
J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Jun 22;16(1):398
pubmed: 34158087
Pain Physician. 2016 Feb;19(2):E301-8
pubmed: 26815257
Acta Radiol. 2016 May;57(5):602-11
pubmed: 26221055
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014 Apr;119:84-7
pubmed: 24635932
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Oct;93(10):1395-9
pubmed: 21969441
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Nov 15;31(24):E890-7
pubmed: 17108817
J Orthop Surg Res. 2013 May 25;8:14
pubmed: 23705685
Clin Anat. 2013 Sep;26(6):728-34
pubmed: 23824995
Eur Spine J. 2017 Mar;26(3):847-856
pubmed: 27885470
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Oct;96(43):e8427
pubmed: 29069043
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Apr 1;27(7):722-31
pubmed: 11923665
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2012 Jul;9(4):361-6
pubmed: 22905840
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2017 Jul 1;55(7):543-548
pubmed: 28655085
World Neurosurg. 2017 Oct;106:291-299
pubmed: 28710043
Int Orthop. 2015 Aug;39(8):1599-604
pubmed: 25864088
J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Oct;19(4):492-501
pubmed: 23952323
Pain Physician. 2018 Jul;21(4):E355-E365
pubmed: 30045602
SAS J. 2007 Aug 01;1(3):100-7
pubmed: 25802586