Comparison of Clinical Effects of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws and Traditional Pedicle Screws in Posterior Lumbar Fusion

ZHANG Xuelei; GU Zuchao; ZHANG Yu; LI Guo

doi:10.12182/20240360205

Volume 55 Issue 2

Apr. 2024

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

JOURNAL OF SICHUAN UNIVERSITY (MEDICAL SCIENCES) > 2024 > 55(2): 303-308. > DOI: 10.12182/20240360205

ZHANG Xuelei, GU Zuchao, ZHANG Yu, et al. Comparison of Clinical Effects of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws and Traditional Pedicle Screws in Posterior Lumbar Fusion[J]. Journal of Sichuan University (Medical Sciences), 2024, 55(2): 303-308. DOI: 10.12182/20240360205

Citation:

PDF (1154 KB)

Comparison of Clinical Effects of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws and Traditional Pedicle Screws in Posterior Lumbar Fusion

Department of Orthopedics, Chengdu Integrated Traditional Chinese Medicine & Western Medicine Hospital/Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu 610016, China

More Information

Corresponding author:
LI Guo, E-mail: guoli_gk@163.com
Received Date: September 03, 2023
Revised Date: March 12, 2024
Published Date: March 19, 2024

Abstract

Abstract

Objective
To compare the clinical effects of cortical bone trajectory screws and traditional pedicle screws in posterior lumbar fusion.
Methods
A retrospective study was conducted to analyze lumbar degeneration patients who underwent surgical treatment at our hospital between January 2016 and January 2019. A total of 123 patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled. The subjects were divided into two groups according to their surgical procedures and the members of the two groups were matched by age, sex, and the number of fusion segments. There were 63 patients in the traditional pedicle screws (PS) group and 60 in the cortical bone trajectory screws (CBTS) group. The outcomes of the two groups were compared. The primary outcome measures were perioperative conditions, including operation duration, estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL), and length-of-stay (LOS), visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and interbody fusion rate. The secondary outcome measures were the time to postoperative ambulation and the incidence of complications. VAS scores and ODI scores were assessed before operation, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 12 months after operation, and at the final follow-up. The interbody fusion rate was assessed in 1 year and 2 years after the operation and at the final follow-up.
Results
The CBTS group showed a reduction in operation duration ([142.8±13.1] min vs. [174.7±15.4] min, P<0.001), LOS ([9.5±1.5] d vs. [12.0±2.0] d, P<0.001), and EBL ([194.2±38.3] mL vs. [377.5±33.1] mL, P<0.001) in comparison with the PS group. The VAS score for back pain in the CBTS group was lower than that in the PS group at 1 week and 1 month after operation and the ODI score in the CBTS group was lower than that in the PS group at 1 month after operation, with the differences being statistically significant (P<0.05). At each postoperative time point, the VAS score for leg pain and the interbody fusion rate did not show significant difference between the two groups. The VAS score for back and leg pain and the ODI score at each time point after operation in both the CBTS group and the PS group were significantly lower than those before operation (P<0.05). No significant difference was found in the time to postoperative ambulation or the overall complication incidence between the two groups.
Conclusion
The CBTS technique could significantly shorten the operation duration and LOS, reduce EBL, and achieve the same effect as the PS technique does in terms of intervertebral fusion rate, pain relief, functional improvement, and complication incidence in patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion.
- Cortical trajectory pedicle screw,
- Pedicle screw,
- Posterior lumbar fusion,
- Clinical efficacy

FullText(HTML)

References (29)

References

[1]	SON H J, CHOI S H, HEO D R, et al. Outcomes of the use of cement-augmented cannulated pedicle screws in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J,2021,21(11): 1857–1865. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.05.005.
[2]	FATIMA N, MASSAAD E, HADZIPASIC M, et al. Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted placement of pedicle screws compared to conventional free-hand technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J,2021,21(2): 181–192. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.09.007.
[3]	FELIX B, KALATAR S B, MOATZ B, et al. Augmented reality spine surgery navigation: increasing pedicle screw insertion accuracy for both open and minimally invasive spine surgeries. Spine,2022,47(12): 865–872. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004338.
[4]	HIRANO T, HASEGAWA K, TAKAHASHI H E, et al. Structural characteristics of the pedicle and its role in screw stability. Spine,1997,22(21): 2504–2510. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199711010-00007.
[5]	GUO H Z, TANG Y C, GUO D Q, et al. Pedicle screw fixation in single-level, double-level, or multilevel posterior lumbar fusion for osteoporotic spine: a retrospective study with a minimum 2-year follow-up. World Neurosurg,2020,140: e121–e128. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.198.
[6]	YUAN L, ZHANG X, ZENG Y, et al. Incidence, risk, and outcome of pedicle screw loosening in degenerative lumbar scoliosis patients undergoing long-segment fusion. Global Spine J,2023,13(4): 1064–1071. doi: 10.1177/21925682211017477.
[7]	SANTONI B, HYNES R, MCGILVRAY K, et al. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J,2009,9(5): 366–373. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.008.
[8]	ZHANG L, LI H M, ZHANG R, et al. Biomechanical changes of adjacent and fixed segments through cortical bone trajectory screw fixation versus traditional trajectory screw fixation in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. World Neurosurg,2021,151: e447–e456. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.04.061.
[9]	CHUNG T T, CHU C L, HUENG D Y, et al. A parametric investigation on traditional and cortical bone trajectory screws for transpedicular fixation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord,2022,23(1): 612. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05477-5.
[10]	QIU L, NIU F, WU Z, et al. Comparative outcomes of cortical bone trajectory screw fixation and traditional pedicle screws in lumbar fusion: a meta-analysis. World Neurosurg,2022,164: e436–e445. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.04.129.
[11]	LEE C K, KIM D, AN S B, et al. An optimal cortical bone trajectory technique to prevent early surgical complications. Br J Neurosurg,2020: 1–7. doi: 10.1080/02688697.2020.1821172.
[12]	KWON J W, PARK Y, LEE B H, et al. A comparison between cortical bone trajectory screws and traditional pedicle screws in patients with single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: five-year results. Spine,2023,48(22): 1617–1625. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004523.
[13]	KOLZ J M, PINTER Z W, BYDON M, et al. Controversies in spine surgery: is a cortical bone trajectory superior to traditional pedicle screw trajectory? Clin Spine Surg,2022,35(6): 225–228. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000965.
[14]	KIM H S, WU P H, KIM J Y, et al. Retrospective Case Control Study: clinical and computer tomographic fusion and subsidence evaluation for single level uniportal endoscopic posterolateral approach transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus microscopic minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion. Global Spine J,2023,13(2): 304–315. doi: 10.1177/2192568221994796.
[15]	SOINI V, RAITIO A, HELENIUS I, et al. A retrospective cohort study of bleeding characteristics and hidden blood loss after segmental pedicle screw instrumentation in neuromuscular scoliosis as compared with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. N Am Spine Soc J,2022,12: 100190. doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100190.
[16]	KAMEYAMA K, OHBA T, ENDO T, et al. Radiological assessment of postoperative paraspinal muscle changes after lumbar interbody fusion with or without minimally invasive techniques. Global Spine J,2023,13(2): 295–303. doi: 10.1177/2192568221994794.
[17]	KIM S J, MOBBS R J, NATARAJAN P, et al. Historical note: the evolution of cortical bone trajectory and associated techniques. Spine Surg Relat Res,2022,6(1): 1–9. doi: 10.22603/ssrr.2021-0059.
[18]	XUE Y D, MA C, FENG J, et al. Investigation of clinical efficacy of screw fixation with cortical bone trajectory for adjacent segment disease after lumbar interbody fusion. Eur J Inflamm,2021,19. doi: 10.1177/20587392211000561.
[19]	LEE G W, SON J H, AHN M W, et al. The comparison of pedicle screw and cortical screw in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective randomized noninferiority trial. Spine J,2015,15(7): 1519–1526. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.038.
[20]	WANG J, HE X, SUN T. Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of cortical bone trajectory screw fixation and traditional pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J,2019,28: 1678–1689. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-05999-y.
[21]	ZHANG T, GUO N, CHEN T, et al. Comparison of outcomes between cortical screws and traditional pedicle screws for lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Resh,2019,14(1): 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1311-x.
[22]	MARUO K, ARIZUMI F, KUSUYAMA K, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes after transforaminal interbody fusion using cortical bone trajectory versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. World Neurosurg,2021,151: e821–e827. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.04.130.
[23]	CHANG M C, CHOO Y J, LEE G W. Pedicle screws versus cortical screws in posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J,2021,21(7): 1126–1134. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.019.
[24]	HU X, WU C, XU C, et al. Comparison of hidden blood loss between cortical bone trajectory screw fixation and traditional pedicle screw fixation. Res Sq, 2021: 1-14.
[25]	SAKAURA H, MIWA T, YAMASHITA T, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion using traditional pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study. J Neurosurg Spine,2016,25(5): 591–595. doi: 10.3171/2016.3.SPINE151525.
[26]	SNYDER L A, MARTINEZ-Del-CAMPO E, NEAL M T, et al. Lumbar spinal fixation with cortical bone trajectory pedicle screws in 79 patients with degenerative disease: perioperative outcomes and complications. World Neurosurg,2016,88: 205–213. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.12.065.
[27]	HOFFMAN H, VERHAVE B, JALAL M S, et al. Comparison of cortical bone trajectory screw placement using the midline lumbar fusion technique to traditional pedicle screws: a case-control study. Int J Spine Surg,2019,13(1): 33–38. doi: 10.14444/6005.
[28]	LIU L, ZHANG S, LIU G, et al. Early clinical outcome of lumbar spinal fixation with cortical bone trajectory pedicle screws in patients with osteoporosis with degenerative disease. Orthopedics,2019,42(5): e465–e471. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20190604-01.
[29]	De BONIS P, CHICCOLI M, VISANI J, et al. Functional outcome of patients with unstable single-level/two-level lumbar stenosis treated with decompression plus divergent screws (cortical bone trajectory) or percutaneous convergent pedicle screws. J Neurosurg Sci,2022,66(6): 576–581. doi: 10.23736/S0390-5616.20.04893-6.

OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC 4.0). In other words, the full-text content of the journal is made freely available for third-party users to copy and redistribute in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the content of the journal. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may not use the content of the journal for commercial purposes. For more information about the license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0

Relative Articles

Supplements (0)

Cited By