143 research outputs found

    Psoas Morphology Differs between Supine and Sitting Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lumbar Spine: Implications for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

    Get PDF
    Study DesignRetrospective radiological review.PurposeTo quantify the effect of sitting vs supine lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and change in anterior displacement of the psoas muscle from L1–L2 to L4–L5 discs.Overview of LiteratureControversy exists in determining patient suitability for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) based on psoas morphology. The effect of posture on psoas morphology has not previously been studied; however, lumbar MRI may be performed in sitting or supine positions.MethodsA retrospective review of a single-spine practice over 6 months was performed, identifying patients aged between 18–90 years with degenerative spinal pathologies and lumbar MRIs were evaluated. Previous lumbar fusion, scoliosis, neuromuscular disease, skeletal immaturity, or intrinsic abnormalities of the psoas muscle were excluded. The anteroposterior (AP) dimension of the psoas muscle and intervertebral disc were measured at each intervertebral disc from L1–L2 to L4–L5, and the AP psoas:disc ratio calculated. The morphology was compared between patients undergoing sitting and/or supine MRI.ResultsTwo hundred and nine patients were identified with supine-, and 60 patients with sitting-MRIs, of which 13 patients had undergone both sitting and supine MRIs (BOTH group). A propensity score match (PSM) was performed for patients undergoing either supine or sitting MRI to match for age, BMI, and gender to produce two groups of 43 patients. In the BOTH and PSM group, sitting MRI displayed significantly higher AP psoas:disc ratio compared with supine MRI at all intervertebral levels except L1–L2. The largest difference observed was a mean 32%–37% increase in sitting AP psoas:disc ratio at the L4–L5 disc in sitting compared to supine in the BOTH group (range, 0%–137%).ConclusionsThe psoas muscle and the lumbar plexus become anteriorly displaced in sitting MRIs, with a greater effect noted at caudal intervertebral discs. This may have implications in selecting suitability for LLIF, and intra-operative patient positioning

    Assessment of Surgical Procedural Time, Pedicle Screw Accuracy, and Clinician Radiation Exposure of a Novel Robotic Navigation System Compared With Conventional Open and Percutaneous Freehand Techniques: A Cadaveric Investigation

    Get PDF
    STUDY DESIGN: Cadaveric study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate accuracy, radiation exposure, and surgical time of a new robotic-assisted navigation (RAN) platform compared with freehand techniques in conventional open and percutaneous procedures. METHODS: Ten board-certified surgeons inserted 16 pedicle screws at T10-L5 (n = 40 per technique) in 10 human cadaveric torsos. Pedicle screws were inserted with (1) conventional MIS technique (L2-L5, patient left pedicles), (2) MIS RAN (L2-L5, patient right pedicles), (3) conventional open technique (T10-L1, patient left pedicles), and (4) open RAN (T10-L1, patient right pedicles). Output included (1) operative time, (2) number of fluoroscopic images, and (3) screw accuracy. RESULTS: In the MIS group, compared with the freehand technique, RAN allowed for use of larger screws (diameter: 6.6 ± 0.6 mm vs 6.3 ± 0.5 mm; length: 50.3 ± 4.1 mm vs 46.9 ± 3.5 mm), decreased the number of breaches \u3e2 mm (0 vs 7), fewer fluoroscopic images (0 ± 0 vs 108.3 ± 30.9), and surgical procedure time per screw (3.6 ± 0.4 minutes vs 7.6 ± 2.0 minutes) (all CONCLUSION: RAN significantly improved accuracy and decreased radiation exposure in comparison to freehand techniques in both conventional open and percutaneous surgical procedures in cadavers. RAN significantly increased setup time compared with both conventional procedures

    Limited morbidity and possible radiographic benefit of C2

    Get PDF
    Background: The study aims to evaluate differences in alignment and clinical outcomes between surgical cervical deformity (CD) patients with a subaxial upper-most instrumented vertebra (UIV) and patients with a UIV at C2. Use of CD-corrective instrumentation in the subaxial cervical spine is considered risky due to narrow subaxial pedicles and vertebral artery anatomy. While C2 fixation provides increased stability, the literature lacks guidelines indicating extension of CD-corrective fusion from the subaxial spine to C2. Methods: Included: operative CD patients with baseline (BL) and 1-year postop (1Y) radiographic data, cervical UIV ≥ C2. Patients were grouped by UIV: C2 or subaxial (C3-C7) and propensity score matched (PSM) for BL cSVA. Mean comparison tests assessed differences in BL and 1Y patient-related, radiographic, and surgical data between UIV groups, and BL-1Y changes in alignment and clinical outcomes. Results: Following PSM, 31 C2 UIV and 31 subaxial UIV patients undergoing CD-corrective surgery were included. Groups did not differ in BL comorbidity burden (P=0.175) or cSVA (P=0.401). C2 patients were older (64 Conclusions: C2 UIV patients showed similar cervical range of motion and baseline to 1-year functional outcomes as patients with a subaxial UIV. C2 UIV patients also showed greater baseline to 1-year horizontal gaze improvement and had complication profiles similar to subaxial UIV patients, demonstrating the radiographic benefit and minimal functional loss associated with extending fusion constructs to C2. In the treatment of adult cervical deformities, extension of the reconstruction construct to the axis may allow for certain clinical benefits with less morbidity than previously acknowledged

    Pedicle versus laminar screws: what provides more suitable C2 fixation in congenital C2–3 fusion patients?

    No full text
    Patients with Klippel–Feil syndrome (KFS) have congenital fusions of at least 1 cervical motion segment, and often present with compensatory hypermobility or symptomatic stenosis of the cranio-vertebral junction which requires occipitocervical reconstruction and fusion. One subgroup of KFS patients in which this is particularly common is those with isolated C2–3 congenital fusion (C2–3 CF). The anatomic suitability for C2 pedicle and laminar screw placement had been analyzed in the general adult population, and guidelines for their techniques had been established. However, the feasibility and safety of the two techniques in KFS patients with congenital C2–3 fusion has not been reported. This radiographic study was performed to evaluate the feasibility of these two widely used methods in such patients. We recruited 108 patients with atlantoaxial dislocation and reconstructed CTs were performed. Among them, 53 had C2–C3 congenital fusion diagnosed as KFS and 55 had normal cervical segmentation (NCS). The maximum possible diameters and length were measured along the ideal screw trajectories. Both of mean diameters and lengths of the C2 laminar screw trajectory in the C2–3 CF group were significantly larger than that in NCS. Mean diameters of the C2 pedicle screw trajectory in this group were significantly smaller than that in NCS group, however, C2–3 CF patients had longer pedicle paths than NCS. In the C2–3 CF group, all 53 cases had suitable trajectory for C2 laminar screw, while 21 (39.6%) had a pedicle diameter less than 4.5 mm. In the NCS group, 5 cases (9.1%) had a pedicle diameter less than 4.5 mm. All 108 cases had sufficient diameters for C2 laminar screw placement. Klippel–Feil patients with C2–3 CF are good candidates for the technique of C2 laminar screw. Preoperative radiography should be carefully evaluated and the option of C2 fixation be determined with a thorough consideration in these patients
    • …
    corecore