Comparison of intraoperative CT- and cone beam CT-based spinal navigation for the treatment of atlantoaxial instability.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Due to the complexity of neurovascular structures in the atlantoaxial region, spinal navigation for posterior C1-C2 instrumentation is nowadays a helpful tool to increase accuracy of surgery and safety of patients. Many available intraoperative navigation devices have proven their reliability in this part of the spine. Two main imaging techniques are used: intraoperative CT (iCT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

PURPOSE: Comparison of iCT- and CBCT-based technologies for navigated posterior instrumentation in C1-C2 instability.

STUDY

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 81 consecutive patients from July 2014 to April 2020.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Screw accuracy and operating time.

METHODS

Patients with C1-C2 instability received posterior instrumentation using C2 pedicle screws, C1 lateral mass or pedicle screws. All screws were inserted using intraoperative imaging either using iCT or CBCT systems and spinal navigation with autoregistration technology. Following navigated screw insertion, a second intraoperative scan was performed to assess the accuracy of screw placement. Accuracy was defined as the percentage of correctly placed screws or with minor cortical breach (<2 mm) as graded by an independent observer compared to misplaced screws.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients with C1-C2 instability were retrospectively analyzed. Of these, 34 patients were operated with the use of iCT and 47 with CBCT. No significant demographic difference was found between groups. In the iCT group, 97.7% of the C1-C2 screws were correctly inserted; 2.3% showed a minor cortical breach (<2 mm); no misplacement (>2 mm). In the CBCT group, 98.9% of screws were correctly inserted; no minor pedicle breach; 1.1% showed misplacement >2 mm. Accuracy of screw placement demonstrated no significant difference between groups. Both technologies allowed sufficient identification of screw misplacement intraoperatively leading to two screw revisions in the iCT and three in the CBCT group. Median time of surgery was significantly shorter using CBCT technology (166.5 minutes [iCT] vs 122 minutes [CBCT]; p<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal navigation using either iCT- or CBCT-based systems with autoregistration allows safe and reliable screw placement and intraoperative assessment of screw positioning. Using the herein presented procedural protocols, CBCT systems allow shorter operating time.