World neurosurgery · 2024
Sacropelvic Fixation with Porous Fusion/Fixation Screws: A Technical Note and Retrospective Review.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hendrickson Nathan R, Haselhuhn Jason J, Odland Kari, Sembrano Jonathan N, Martin Christopher T, Jones Kristen E, Polly David W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to analyze our initial experience using a novel porous fusion/fixation screw (PFFS) for pelvic fixation and determine our rate of screw malposition requiring intraoperative repositioning.
METHODS: We reviewed 83 consecutive patients who underwent sacropelvic fixation with PFFS at our institution from June 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 using intraoperative computed tomography-based computer-assisted navigation via an open posterior approach. Following PFFS insertion, intraoperative computed tomography scans were obtained to assess screw positioning. Demographic data were collected, and operative reports and patient images were reviewed to determine what implants were used and if any PFFS required repositioning.
RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (26M:48F) were included, and 57 (77.0%) had a prior sacroiliac joint or lumbar spine surgery. A stacked screw configuration was used in 62/74 cases (83.8%). A total of 235 PFFS were used and six (2.6%) were malpositioned. Of 88 cephalic screws placed in stacked configuration, 4 were malpositioned (4.5%) and 1/123 caudal screws were malpositioned (0.8%). One of 24 sacral-alar-iliac screws placed in a stand-alone configuration was malpositioned (4.2%). Malpositions included 4 medial, 1 lateral, and 1 inferior, and all were revised intraoperatively without major sequela.
CONCLUSIONS: Although PFFSs are larger than traditional sacropelvic fixation screws, stacked sacral-alar-iliac instrumentation can be done safely with computer-assisted navigation. We found a low malposition rate in our initial series of patients, the majority being the cephalad screw in a stacked configuration. This isn't surprising, as these are placed after the caudal screws, which reduces the available corridor size and increases the placement difficulty.
METHODS: We reviewed 83 consecutive patients who underwent sacropelvic fixation with PFFS at our institution from June 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 using intraoperative computed tomography-based computer-assisted navigation via an open posterior approach. Following PFFS insertion, intraoperative computed tomography scans were obtained to assess screw positioning. Demographic data were collected, and operative reports and patient images were reviewed to determine what implants were used and if any PFFS required repositioning.
RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (26M:48F) were included, and 57 (77.0%) had a prior sacroiliac joint or lumbar spine surgery. A stacked screw configuration was used in 62/74 cases (83.8%). A total of 235 PFFS were used and six (2.6%) were malpositioned. Of 88 cephalic screws placed in stacked configuration, 4 were malpositioned (4.5%) and 1/123 caudal screws were malpositioned (0.8%). One of 24 sacral-alar-iliac screws placed in a stand-alone configuration was malpositioned (4.2%). Malpositions included 4 medial, 1 lateral, and 1 inferior, and all were revised intraoperatively without major sequela.
CONCLUSIONS: Although PFFSs are larger than traditional sacropelvic fixation screws, stacked sacral-alar-iliac instrumentation can be done safely with computer-assisted navigation. We found a low malposition rate in our initial series of patients, the majority being the cephalad screw in a stacked configuration. This isn't surprising, as these are placed after the caudal screws, which reduces the available corridor size and increases the placement difficulty.