1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Feasibility of anterior pedicle screw fixation in lumbosacral spine: a radiographic and cadaveric study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The anterior pedicle screw (APS) technique for L5 and S1 is crucial for proper anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). This study aimed to determine the projection, screw trajectory angle, and bone screw passageway length (BSPL), as well as the screw insertion regularity and the operating area within which it is safe to perform insertion.

          Methods

          Forty patients with low back pain, all of whom had lumbar computed tomography scans available, was included in this retrospective analysis. Radiographic parameters were measured, including: the distances from the projection to the upper endplate, lower endplate, and midline; the transverse and sagittal screw angles; and the BSPL. In addition, 10 fresh adult cadaveric lumbosacral spine segments were selected to determine the safe anatomic area in which to operate. Finally, APSs were inserted in L5 and S1 to determine the regularity of APS insertion.

          Results

          We measured the anterior projection parameters, including: the distances to the upper endplate (L5: 12.5±1.3 mm; S1: 4.54±0.87 mm), lower endplate (L5: 17.3±1.6 mm), and midline (L5: 6.6±0.7 mm; S1: 6.6±0.6 mm); the screw trajectory angle, including the transverse screw angle (L5: 25.3±2.8°; S1: 25.7±2.6°), sagittal screw angle (L5: 17.1±1.7°; S1: 22.4±1.1°); and the BSPL (L5: 48.6±3.5 mm; S1: 48.0±3.5 mm). The regularity of APS insertion in L5 and S1 was determined. Upon the needle reaching a point in the lateral view, it reached the corresponding point in the anteroposterior (AP) view. The anatomic parameters of the safe operating area were as follows: the distance from the abdominal aortic bifurcation to the L5 lower edge (40.50±9.40 mm); the distance from the common iliac vein confluence to the L5 lower edge (27.80±8.60 mm); and the horizontal distance from the inner edge of the common iliac vein to the L5 lower edge (37.50±1.30 mm). We also determined the distance between S1 holes (29.30±1.30 mm), the L5/S1 intervertebral height (17.20±1.50 mm), and the safe operating area (2,058.20±84.30 mm 2).

          Conclusions

          This study has determined the projection, screw trajectory angle, and BSPL of APSs in L5 and S1, their insertion regularity, and the area in which the operation can be safely performed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature.

          Review of the literature. Review the definition, etiology, incidence, and risk factors associated with as well as potential treatment options. The development of pathology at the mobile segment next to a lumbar or lumbosacral spinal fusion has been termed adjacent segment disease. Initially reported to occur rarely, it is now considered a potential late complication of spinal fusion that can necessitate further surgical intervention and adversely affect outcomes. MEDLINE literature search. The most common abnormal finding at the adjacent segment is disc degeneration. Biomechanical changes consisting of increased intradiscal pressure, increased facet loading, and increased mobility occur after fusion and have been implicated in causing adjacent segment disease. Progressive spinal degeneration with age is also thought to be a major contributor. From a radiographic standpoint, reported incidence during average postoperative follow-up observation ranging from 36 to 369 months varies substantially from 5.2 to 100%. Incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease is lower, however, ranging from 5.2 to 18.5% during 44.8 to 164 months of follow-up observation. The rate of symptomatic adjacent segment disease is higher in patients with transpedicular instrumentation (12.2-18.5%) compared with patients fused with other forms of instrumentation or with no instrumentation (5.2-5.6%). Potential risk factors include instrumentation, fusion length, sagittal malalignment, facet injury, age, and pre-existing degenerative changes. Biomechanical alterations likely play a primary role in causing adjacent segment disease. Radiographically apparent, asymptomatic adjacent segment disease is common but does not correlate with functional outcomes. Potentially modifiable risk factors for the development of adjacent segment disease include fusion without instrumentation, protecting the facet joint of the adjacent segment during placement of pedicle screws,fusion length, and sagittal balance. Surgical management, when indicated, consists of decompression of neural elements and extension of fusion. Outcomes after surgery, however, are modest.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A method of spinal fusion.

            H Boucher (1959)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Spinal pedicle fixation: reliability and validity of roentgenogram-based assessment and surgical factors on successful screw placement.

              The increased popularity of pedicle fixation prompted research to address two issues: the reliability and validity of roentgenograms as a technique for evaluating the success of pedicle fixation, and the effects of surgical factors on successful fixation. Thus, does approach--the point and angle of screw insertion, surgeon experience, practice, level of the spine involved, and screw size--effect success of pedicle fixation? Eight fresh thoracolumbar spines were harvested and cleaned of all soft tissues. Two surgeons, one more experienced in pedicle fixation than the other, used two pedicle fixation approaches (Weinstein and Roy-Camille) on both the left and right sides at levels T11-S1 of each specimen. All screws were placed under anteroposterior (AP) and lateral c-arm control. For specimens 1 to 3, 5.5 mm screws were used at T11-L1, and 7.0 mm screws at L2-S1. Unacceptable failure rates at L2 and L3 for the first three specimens resulted in a change of instrumentation for the remaining specimens, with 5.5 mm screws used at T11-L3 and 7.0 mm screws at L4-S1. When surgeons completed the fixations for a specimen, AP and lateral roentgenograms were taken and both surgeons independently evaluated the films to assess the success of each fixation. Failure was defined as evidence of any cortical perforation on any side of the pedicle in or outside of the spinal canal. After completing the roentgenogram evaluation, the specimen was transected in the midline, and the success of each pedicle fixation was evaluated by visual/tactile inspection. There were no disagreements between surgeons on the visual/tactile evaluations of the specimens.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Transl Med
                Ann Transl Med
                ATM
                Annals of Translational Medicine
                AME Publishing Company
                2305-5839
                2305-5847
                June 2021
                June 2021
                : 9
                : 12
                : 968
                Affiliations
                [1]deptDepartment of Orthopaedics , Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province , Hangzhou, China
                Author notes

                Contributions: (I) Conception and design: WX Xu, HF Sheng; (II) Administrative support: WX Xu; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: WX Xu; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: B Xu, HF Sheng, TH Hu; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: B Xu, WG Ding, D Lu; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

                Correspondence to: Bin Xu. Department of Orthopaedics, Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province, 234# Gu-cui Road, Hangzhou 310012, China. Email: spotxu@ 123456163.com .
                Article
                atm-09-12-968
                10.21037/atm-21-2143
                8267288
                34277768
                c4ad3c76-943b-4193-aeb9-85e7bf227078
                2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.

                Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0.

                History
                : 23 March 2021
                : 03 June 2021
                Categories
                Original Article

                anterior pedicle screw (aps),lumbosacral spine,radiographic measurement,safe operating area

                Comments

                Comment on this article