Three-dimensional-printed guide plate for direct percutaneous pedicle screw implantation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a retrospective study of 162 patients.
3D printing
Guide plate
MIS-TLIF
Percutaneous pedicle screw implantation
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Oct 2024
26 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
21
07
2024
accepted:
01
10
2024
medline:
26
10
2024
pubmed:
26
10
2024
entrez:
26
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to investigate the impact of three-dimensional (3D)-printed guide plate-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw implantation on minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery. Overall, 162 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF at Tai'an City Central Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. The studied variables included operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, postoperative drainage volume, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability Index (ODI) score (preoperatively and at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery), and intervertebral fusion rate at 6 months after surgery. The conventional group included 99 patients who underwent a conventional procedure, while the 3D printing group included 63 patients who underwent 3D-printed guide plate-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw implantation. The conventional group required more times of positioning needle punctures than the 3D printing group (22.2 ± 5.9 vs. 16.1 ± 4.9). The operation and fluoroscopy time were also longer in the former group (183.5 ± 51.1 min vs. 148.8 ± 40.3 min and 30.2 ± 5.9 s vs. 24.1 ± 4.9 s, respectively). In 3D printing group, lower back pain VAS scores and ODI scores at 2 weeks and 3 months after surgery were observed. There were no significant differences in terms of the volumes of intraoperative blood loss; postoperative lower limb pain VAS scores; and interbody fusion rate (P > 0.05). The novel 3D-printed guide plate-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw implantation can achieve better amelioration of back pain and recovery of function. It also reduced the times of positioning needle puncture and fluoroscopy time during percutaneous screw placement surgery and reduced the duration of surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to investigate the impact of three-dimensional (3D)-printed guide plate-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw implantation on minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery.
METHODS
METHODS
Overall, 162 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF at Tai'an City Central Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. The studied variables included operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, postoperative drainage volume, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability Index (ODI) score (preoperatively and at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery), and intervertebral fusion rate at 6 months after surgery.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The conventional group included 99 patients who underwent a conventional procedure, while the 3D printing group included 63 patients who underwent 3D-printed guide plate-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw implantation. The conventional group required more times of positioning needle punctures than the 3D printing group (22.2 ± 5.9 vs. 16.1 ± 4.9). The operation and fluoroscopy time were also longer in the former group (183.5 ± 51.1 min vs. 148.8 ± 40.3 min and 30.2 ± 5.9 s vs. 24.1 ± 4.9 s, respectively). In 3D printing group, lower back pain VAS scores and ODI scores at 2 weeks and 3 months after surgery were observed. There were no significant differences in terms of the volumes of intraoperative blood loss; postoperative lower limb pain VAS scores; and interbody fusion rate (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The novel 3D-printed guide plate-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw implantation can achieve better amelioration of back pain and recovery of function. It also reduced the times of positioning needle puncture and fluoroscopy time during percutaneous screw placement surgery and reduced the duration of surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39456065
doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-05135-7
pii: 10.1186/s13018-024-05135-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
694Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ishii K, Funao H, Isogai N, Saito T, Arizono T, Hoshino M, et al. The history and development of the percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) system. Med (Kaunas Lith). 2022;58:1064. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081064 . Pubmed:36013531.
doi: 10.3390/medicina58081064
Nandyala SV, Fineberg SJ, Pelton M, Singh K. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: one surgeon’s learning curve. Spine J. 2014;14:1460–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.045 .
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.045
pubmed: 24290313
Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18:624–7. Pubmed:21349719.
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.09.004
pubmed: 21349719
Regev GJ, Lee YP, Taylor WR, Garfin SR, Kim CW. Nerve injury to the posterior rami medial branch during the insertion of pedicle screws: comparison of mini-open versus percutaneous pedicle screw insertion techniques. Spine. 2009;34:1239–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819e2c5c . Pubmed:19444073.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819e2c5c
pubmed: 19444073
Cheng H, Chen BP-H, Soleas IM, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P. Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: a systematic review. Surg Infect. 2017;18:722–35. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2017.089 .
doi: 10.1089/sur.2017.089
Anderson PA, Savage JW, Vaccaro AR, Radcliff K, Arnold PM, Lawrence BD et al. Prevention of surgical site infection in spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2017;80:S114-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyw066 , Pubmed:28350942.
Arif S, Brady Z, Enchev Y, Peev N, Encheva E. Minimising radiation exposure to the surgeon in minimally invasive spine surgeries: a systematic review of 15 studies. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107:102795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102795 .
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102795
pubmed: 33333283
Cristante AF, Barbieri F, da Silva AAR, Dellamano JC. Radiation exposure during spine surgery using C-ARM fluoroscopy. Acta Ortop Bras. 2019;27:46–9. doi: 10.1590/1413-785220192701172722, Pubmed:30774530.
doi: 10.1590/1413-785220192701172722
pubmed: 30774530
pmcid: 6362693
Butler AJ, Colman MW, Lynch J, Phillips FM. Augmented reality in minimally invasive spine surgery: early efficiency and complications of percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine J. 2023;23:27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2022.09.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.09.008
pubmed: 36182070
Molliqaj G, Schatlo B, Alaid A, Solomiichuk V, Rohde V, Schaller K et al. Accuracy of robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42:E14. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.3.FOCUS179 , Pubmed:28463623.
Yang J-S, He B, Tian F, Liu T-J, Liu P, Zhang J-N et al. Accuracy of robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement for treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative cohort study. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:2479-87. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.913124 , Pubmed:30946733.
Perfetti DC, Kisinde S, Rogers-LaVanne MP, Satin AM, Lieberman IH. Robotic spine surgery: past, present, and future. Spine. 2022;47:909 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004357 , Pubmed:35472043.
Dong X-P, Zhang Y-W, Pei Y-J, Wang Z, Zhang X-X, Yu X-L, et al. Three-dimensional printing for the accurate orthopedics: clinical cases analysis. Bio-Des Manuf. 2020;3:122–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-020-00070-y .
doi: 10.1007/s42242-020-00070-y
Meng M, Wang J, Sun T, Zhang W, Zhang J, Shu L, et al. Clinical applications and prospects of 3D printing guide templates in orthopaedics. J Orthop Translat. 2022;34:22–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2022.03.001 . Pubmed:35615638.
doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2022.03.001
pubmed: 35615638
pmcid: 9117878
Merc M, Drstvensek I, Vogrin M, Brajlih T, Recnik G. A multi-level rapid prototyping drill guide template reduces the perforation risk of pedicle screw placement in the lumbar and sacral spine. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:893-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1755-0 , Pubmed:23632782.
Ferrari V, Parchi P, Condino S, Carbone M, Baluganti A, Ferrari M, et al. An optimal design for patient-specific templates for pedicle spine screws placement. Int J Med Robot. 2013;9:298–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1439 . Pubmed:22585638.
doi: 10.1002/rcs.1439
pubmed: 22585638
Pijpker PAJ, Kuijlen JMA, Kraeima J, Faber C. Three-dimensional planning and use of individualized osteotomy-guiding templates for surgical correction of kyphoscoliosis: a technical case report. World Neurosurg. 2018;119:113–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.219 . Pubmed:30077023.
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.219
pubmed: 30077023
Tu Q, Ding H-W, Chen H, Miao Q-J, Yang X, Li K, et al. Three-dimensional–printed individualized guiding templates for surgical correction of severe kyphoscoliosis secondary to ankylosing spondylitis: outcomes of 9 cases. World Neurosurg. 2019;130:e961–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.047 .
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.047
pubmed: 31302275
Li J, Lin J, Yang Y, Xu J, Fei Q. 3-dimensional printing guide template assisted percutaneous vertebroplasty: technical note. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;52:159–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2018.03.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2018.03.012
pubmed: 29605276
Provaggi E, Leong JJH, Kalaskar DM. Applications of 3D printing in the management of severe spinal conditions. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2017;231:471–86. doi: 10.1177/0954411916667761, Pubmed:27658427.
doi: 10.1177/0954411916667761
pubmed: 27658427
Beutler WJ, Peppelman WC. Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard andpaired BAK proximity cages: subsidence incidence, subsidence factors, and clinical outcome. Spine J. 2003;3:289 – 93. doi: 10.1016/S1529-943000061-5, Pubmed:14589189.
Choi JY, Sung KH. Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:16–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0817-y , Pubmed:15843972.
Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19:829–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2011.10.004 . Pubmed:22459184.
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2011.10.004
pubmed: 22459184
Teyssédou S, Saget M, Prébet R, Leclercq N, Vendeuvre T, Pries P. Evaluation of percutaneous surgery in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. Preliminary results of a prospective study on 65 patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2011.08.009, Pubmed:22210506.
Tian F, Tu L-Y, Gu W-F, Zhang E-F, Wang Z-B, Chu G, et al. Percutaneous versus open pedicle screw instrumentation in treatment of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med (Baltim). 2018;97:e12535. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012535 .
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012535
Blondel B, Fuentes S, Pech-Gourg G, Adetchessi T, Tropiano P, Dufour H. Percutaneous management of thoracolumbar burst fractures: evolution of techniques and strategy. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97:527 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.03.020 , Pubmed:21763230.
Kim HJ, Park ES, Lee SH, Park CH, Chung SW. Reduction of radiation exposure by modifying imaging manner and fluoroscopic settings during percutaneous pedicle screw insertion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2021;64:933–43. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2020.0338 .
doi: 10.3340/jkns.2020.0338
pubmed: 34420290
pmcid: 8590905
The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003 , Pubmed:18082557.
Ao S, Zheng W, Wu J, Tang Y, Zhang C, Zhou Y, et al. Comparison of preliminary clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases in a tertiary hospital: is percutaneous endoscopic procedure superior to MIS-TLIF? A prospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2020;76:136–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.043 . Pubmed:32165279.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.043
pubmed: 32165279
Staub BN, Sadrameli SS. The use of robotics in minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2019;5:S31-40. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.04.16 , Pubmed:31380491.
Wu C, Deng J, Li T, Tan L, Yuan D. Percutaneous pedicle screw placement aided by a new drill guide template combined with fluoroscopy: an accuracy study. Orthop Surg. 2020;12:471–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12642 . Pubmed:32133781.
doi: 10.1111/os.12642
pubmed: 32133781
pmcid: 7189065