Next Article in Journal
Saphenous Vein Graft Failure: Current Challenges and a Review of the Contemporary Percutaneous Options for Management
Previous Article in Journal
Serum-Creatinine-to-Cystatin C-to-Waist-Circumference Ratios as an Indicator of Severe Airflow Limitation in Older Adults
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 22
10.3390/jcm12227114
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Utility and Appropriateness of Single-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-Arm-Based Navigation in the Novel Oblique Position

by
Tetsuro Ohba
*,
Kotaro Oda
,
Nobuki Tanaka
and
Hirotaka Haro
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Yamanashi, 1110, Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(22), 7114; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227114
Submission received: 21 October 2023 / Revised: 12 November 2023 / Accepted: 14 November 2023 / Published: 15 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Orthopedics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Purpose: Single-position surgery with patients in a lateral position, which involves inserting percutaneous pedicular screws (PPS) and lateral interbody fusion (LIF) to avoid changing the position, has been reported. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the utility and appropriateness of single-position LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation in the innovative oblique position. Methods: This study involved a retrospective analysis of 92 consecutive patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation. Thirty-five subjects demonstrated surgery with repositioning, as well as 24 in the lateral decubitus position, and 33 in the oblique during PPS, where the position was changed to the lateral decubitus position using bed rotation without resetting. We compared these three groups in terms of the surgery time, blood loss, and the accuracy of the screw placement. Results: The operative time was significantly shorter in the single-position surgery, both in the lateral and oblique positions, compared to surgery in a dual position. The blood loss was significantly increased in the lateral position compared to the dual and oblique positions. The screw trajectory angle on the downside was significantly smaller in the lateral position, and the accuracy of the screw placement on the downside was significantly lower in the lateral position compared to the dual and oblique positions. Conclusion: Single-position surgery could reduce the average surgery time by about 60 min. The present study indicated the oblique position during PPS insertion might make single-position surgery more useful to improve the accuracy of PPS on the downside, with less blood loss.

1. Introduction

Spinal fusion is a popular surgical technique for stabilizing the intervertebral space to treat patients with spinal instability, deformity, degenerative scoliosis, or lumbar canal stenosis. Traditional open posterior approaches for lumbar fusion might require extensive dissection of the paraspinal muscles, which can result in permanent muscle denervation, loss of function, late onset of spinal instability, and low back pain [1]. Open lumbar spine surgeries have been reported as a possible cause of surgical site pain compared to minimally invasive techniques [2]. Lateral interbody fusion with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw (LIF-PPS) fixation has been widely performed as a more modern and less invasive approach for the lumbar interbody fusion technique. Advantages of LIF-PPS compared to the traditional open procedure have been reported, including strong correction, a strong fixation force, significantly less bleeding, less invasion of the back muscles, and fewer neurological and operative complications [3,4,5,6]. Conventionally, this procedure was performed LIF, with the patient in a dual lateral decubitus, and PPS with a prone position [7]. Changing positions under anesthesia in the middle of a surgical procedure can prolong the time in the operating room and risk problems with the ventilator and various medical codes. Single-position surgery with patients in a lateral position comprises inserting PPS and performing LIF to avoid a changing position [8,9,10,11]. A recent systematic review revealed that the literature comparing a single-position versus lateral-then-prone lumbar fusion showed a shorter time spent in the operating room and in hospital stays while maintaining comparative rates of perioperative outcomes, complications, and correction of local lordosis [12,13]. Nevertheless, there are remaining concerns about increased interoperative blood loss during PPS and the risk of screw misplacement due to lateral-position surgery [9,14]. Therefore, using bed rotation, we modified a single-position LIF-PPS procedure with O-arm-based navigation to a near-supine position for PPS insertion (named oblique position) and then to a lateral position for LIF.
To assess the utility and appropriateness of the single-position LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation in the innovative oblique position, we conducted a retrospective comparative study of the LIF-PPS procedure performed with the patients in dual, lateral decubitus, and oblique positions.

2. Methods

2.1. Patient Group

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our university and was performed with written informed consent from all eligible patients. Patients were candidates for LIF-PPS surgery if lumbar fusion was needed because of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, and if a full course of conservative care, such as therapeutic exercise, drug, and brace treatments, had been exhausted. The following exclusion criteria were applied: (1) fusion length >3 intervertebral segments; (2) history of past lumbar surgery; and (3) degenerative scoliosis (coronal curve >30°). We retrospectively analyzed data from 92 consecutive patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation from three board-certified spinal surgeons at our institute from 2018 to 2022. The dual-position (DP) group included data from 35 patients and 198 screws, the single lateral decubitus position (LD) group included data from 24 patients and 148 screws, and the single oblique (O) position during PPS included data from 33 patients and 188 screws. Operative times and blood loss were noted from the medical records. The performance status (PS) established by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group was recorded by the attending physician from the day after surgery to 7 days after surgery.

2.2. Surgical Technique for the Dual-Position (DP) Group

The patients were placed in a lateral decubitus position on a Jackson table (Mizuho OSI, Union City, CA, USA) using a trunk indicator and medical tape for trunk fixation during the LIF procedure. After inserting two pins into the iliac crest to fix the reference frame, an O-arm scanner (Medtronic, Louisville, CO, USA) was then operated to obtain intraoperative CT images of the lumbar spine, and the data were transferred to a computer navigation system (Stealth Medtronic Navigation, Louisville, CO, USA). Navigation tools were registered. In all cases, artificial bone was used for the grafted bone in the LIF cage, and resection of iliac bones for bone graft was not performed. After the LIF cage was inserted and the wound was closed, the patients were repositioned prone on a Jackson table in the standard manner, and surgical drapes and sterile instrument fields were reset. After fixing the reference frame by clamping the spinous process with a clamp, the O-arm scanner was used again after repositioning. Posterior PPS fixation using intraoperative CT image-guidance navigation was performed as previously described [15].

2.3. Surgical Technique for the Lateral Decubitus Position (LD) Group

The patients were placed in a lateral decubitus position on a Jackson table using a trunk indicator and medical tape for trunk fixation, in the same way as the DP group. Fixation of the reference frame was achieved by clamping the spinous process at one or two spinal levels superior to the fusion level. First, two surgeons performed posterior PPS fixation from the ventral and dorsal sides to avoid navigation errors caused by intervertebral expansion and/or correction associated with the cage insertion of the LIF. Following PPS insertion, the LIF procedure was performed from the patient’s ventral side using intraoperative CT image-guidance navigation in the same position without an additional O-arm scan. A reset of surgical drapes and sterile instrument fields were not needed.

2.4. Surgical Technique for the Oblique (O)-Position Group

The patients were placed in an oblique position of approximately 45° on a Jackson table, fixing the trunk more firmly compared to the lateral decubitus position with medical tape to prevent the trunk from shifting position during the bed rotation (Figure 1). Fixation of the reference frame was achieved by clamping the spinous process at one or two spinal levels superior to the fusion level. First, two surgeons performed posterior PPS fixation from the ventral and dorsal sides to avoid navigation errors caused by intervertebral expansion and/or correction associated with the cage insertion of the LIF. Following PPS fixation in an oblique position, the patient was repositioned to a lateral decubitus position using bed rotation without resetting surgical drapes and sterile instrument fields. Then, the LLIF procedure was performed from the patient’s ventral side using intraoperative CT image-guidance navigation in a lateral decubitus position.

2.5. Radiological Evaluation

All patients underwent postoperative imaging using an eight-slice multidetector CT system with a 0.83 mm section thickness (Lightspeed Ultra; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA). The trajectory angle of the pedicle screws at each lumbar vertebral level was measured in axial CT images, as previously described [16]. All evaluations of accuracy were performed by two independent spinal surgeons who were blinded to the conditions. Screw positioning was evaluated via axial, sagittal, and coronal plane images to determine whether screw breaches occurred medially, laterally, inferiorly, or superiorly. The accuracy of the screw placement was evaluated according to criteria established previously [17].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were compared using unpaired t-tests, and categorical variables were assessed using Fisher’s exact tests for baseline characteristics among groups. Mean ± SD values were denoted for continuous variables, or number (percentage) values were used for categorical variables. We conducted Student’s t-test, or Kruskal–Wallis (to compare three groups), Mann–Whitney, or Fisher exact tests to compare the mean values between the groups (dual position, lateral position, and oblique position), assuming normal distributions for continuous variables. We used Prism (version 9.0; GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA) to calculate the summary statistics and conduct the t-tests. Asterisks indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05).

3. Results

The preoperative baseline characteristics of the patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery spinal fusion with LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation are summarized in Table 1. There was no significant difference in the patient mean age (DP group; 70.2 ± 9.3 LD group; 72.7 ± 12.0 O group; 73.0 ± 11.8, p = 0.26), sex, average body mass index (BMI), or fusion length among groups. The average fusion length in each group was 2.06 ± 0.69 (DP group), 1.75 ± 0.85 (LD group), and 1.83 ± 0.89 (O group).
The operative time was significantly longer for patients in the DP group than for patients in the LD and O groups (172.1 ± 42.5 min vs. 113.5 ± 34.4 min vs. 1125.5 ± 36.7 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The estimated blood loss was significantly increased in the LD group compared with the DP and O groups (140.9 ± 113.3 mL vs. 75.1 ± 60.7 mL vs. 102.6 ± 113.3 mL, respectively; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the estimated blood loss between the DP and O groups (Figure 2 and Table 2). The postoperative recovery of PS was not significantly different between the three groups. There were no cases in the single-position group that required an O-arm re-imaging.
The radiographic outcomes (screw trajectory angles and accuracy of PPS) of patients in the three groups are shown in Table 2. There was no significant difference in the screw trajectory between groups on the upside (34.8 ± 7.1° vs. 34.2 ± 7.6° vs. 34.1 ± 5.6°, respectively; p = 0.9). In contrast, the screw trajectory on the downside was significantly smaller in patients in the LD group than in patients in the DP and O groups (30.1 ± 6.1° vs. 33.9 ± 6.6° vs. 33.6 ± 6.2°, respectively; p < 0.05). Overall, the frequency of no misplaced screws (Grade 1) in patients in the LD group was significantly lower than that in patients in the DP and O groups (125/148 (84.4%) vs. 181/198 (91.4%) vs. 173/188 (92%), respectively; p < 0.05). For the upside screws, there was no significant difference in the accuracy between the groups. In contrast, the frequency of no misplaced downside screws was significantly lower in patients in the LD group than in patients in the DP and O groups (58/74 (78.4%) vs. 90/94 (91.0%) vs. 87/94 (92.6%), respectively; p < 0.05). Grade 3 misplaced screws were only seen upside in patients in the LD group (4/94, 4.3%). There were no occurrences of neurovascular injury due to screw placement in either group, and no revision surgery was needed in these groups.

4. Discussion

Knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of LLIF and PPS using intraoperative CT image-guidance navigation has been reported in recent years and is rapidly spreading [9,18,19]. Nevertheless, concerns about increasing the exposure of patients to radiation by using CT image-guided navigation instead of traditional guidance with fluoroscopy (C-arm) have been reported [20]. Conventional LIF-PPS fixation with CT image-guided navigation with patients in two (dual) positions requires at least two scans. In the present study, there were no patients in the single-position group who required reimaging with an O-arm, and all patients underwent surgery after a single scan. This result indicated that single-position surgery also had advantages in terms of reducing patient exposure. Consistent with previous reports, a single-position procedure reduces surgical time by approximately 60 min compared with the conventional dual-position procedure. Additionally, eliminating the need for intraoperative repositioning to the prone position is associated with reduced medical costs and complications such as postoperative vision loss and cardiovascular complications, including hypovolemia and cardiac arrest [21,22]. Because of these advantages, the single-position procedure is currently attracting attention as a useful method. However, concerns remain about the pitfalls and the surgeon’s learning curve for PPS placement in the lateral position [23]. Recent reports have indicated that for PPS downside placement in the lateral position, attention was needed to avoid a lateral breach, which was considered to be related to the inability of the surgeon to place the screws medially due to obstruction from the operative bed [24,25]. Our data also showed a significantly lower accuracy for PPS downside placement in the LD group (Figure 3). Another concern for lateral position surgery was increased blood loss, because gravity makes it easier for blood to drip [9]. An advantage of intraoperative CT navigation is that there is no need to adjust the fluoroscopic image after bed rotation. Recently, single-position surgery for lumbar circumferential fusion with patients in various positions has been suggested, such as prone-position LLIF, lateral-position ALIF, and their combination [26]. We considered that bed rotation could be useful to achieve a more advantageous surgical position for each procedure that PPS demonstrated in the oblique position and LIF demonstrated in the lateral position, and the present study indicated an oblique position during PPS insertion that might make single-position surgery more useful to improve the accuracy of the PPS downside placement and to reduce blood loss. Numerous studies have compared single-position surgery and conventional surgery with repositioning for LIF-PPS for lumbar fusion. But among them, to our knowledge, the present study is the first to compare a single lateral position and oblique position during PPS in LIF-PPS for lumbar fusion. Another concern with this procedure was the accuracy of navigation in single lateral or oblique position. Few studies have examined the accuracy and reality of intraoperative CT navigation in lateral approaches to the spine [18]. In our previous study, we reported that most navigation errors in spinal surgery using intraoperative O-arm navigation occur when the position of the reference frame shifts during the surgical procedure near the reference frame [27]. Based on these experiences, we devised a procedure to fix the reference frame strongly to the spinous processes 1–2 vertebrae cephalad of the intervertebral body to be fixed and to perform PPS prior to LIF to avoid the navigation errors caused by intervertebral expansion and/or correction associated with the cage insertion of the LIF. As a result of those efforts, there were no cases in the present study in which the cage or screw insertion position was misaligned due to navigation errors, and there were no cases in which O-arm reimaging was necessary.
The present study had some limitations. First, this was a retrospective study using data based on medical records with a small sample size. Second, the present study did not include clinical data such as the fusion rate, correction of lumbar lordosis, and the postoperative quality of life of the patients. However, the present study is clinically significant, as it shows the utility and appropriateness of the single-position LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation in the innovative oblique position, including lower patient radiation exposure, a shorter operation time, and sufficient screw insertion accuracy.

5. Conclusions

The operative time was significantly shorter in single-position surgery both in the lateral and oblique position compared to the dual position, but the blood loss was significantly increased and the accuracy of the screw placement on the downside was significantly lower in the lateral position compared to the dual and oblique positions. Single-position circumferential lumbar interbody fusion using O-arm-based navigation in an innovative oblique position during PPS insertion might make single-position surgery more useful to improve the accuracy of the PPS downside placement and to reduce blood loss.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.O. and K.O.; methodology, K.O. validation, K.O., N.T. and T.O.; formal analysis T.O. and K.O.; investigation, H.H.; writing—original draft preparation, T.O.; writing—review and editing, T.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical de-vice(s)/drug(s). There were no relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. We did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors for this research.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by our institutional review board (Approval No. 2556; February 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sasso, R.C.; Kitchel, S.H.; Dawson, E.G. A prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial of anterior lumbar interbody fusion using a titanium cylindrical threaded fusion device. Spine 2004, 29, 113–122; discussion 121–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. O’Toole, J.E.; Eichholz, K.M.; Fessler, R.G. Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2009, 11, 471–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kameyama, K.; Ohba, T.; Endo, T.; Katsu, M.; Koji, F.; Kensuke, K.; Oda, K.; Tanaka, N.; Haro, H. Radiological Assessment of Postoperative Paraspinal Muscle Changes After Lumbar Interbody Fusion with or Without Minimally Invasive Techniques. Glob. Spine J. 2023, 13, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khajavi, K.; Shen, A.; Lagina, M.; Hutchison, A. Comparison of clinical outcomes following minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion stratified by preoperative diagnosis. Eur. Spine J. 2015, 24 (Suppl. S3), 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Elowitz, E.H. Central and foraminal indirect decompression in MIS lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): Video lecture. Eur. Spine J. 2015, 24 (Suppl. S3), 449–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ohba, T.; Ebata, S.; Haro, H. Comparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2017, 18, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Yson, S.C.; Sembrano, J.N.; Santos, E.R.G.; Luna, J.T.P.; Polly, D.W. Does Prone Repositioning Before Posterior Fixation Produce Greater Lordosis in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)? J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 2014, 27, 364–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Blizzard, D.J.; Thomas, J.A. MIS Single-position Lateral and Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation. Spine 2018, 43, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ouchida, J.; Kanemura, T.; Satake, K.; Nakashima, H.; Ishikawa, Y.; Imagama, S. Simultaneous single-position lateral interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation using O-arm-based navigation reduces the occupancy time of the operating room. Eur. Spine J. 2020, 29, 1277–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Buckland, A.J.; Ashayeri, K.; Leon, C.; Manning, J.; Eisen, L.; Medley, M.; Protopsaltis, T.S.; Thomas, J.A. Single position circumferential fusion improves operative efficiency, reduces complications and length of stay compared with traditional circumferential fusion. Spine J. 2020, 21, 810–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Romero, S.H.; Berbeo, M.; Diaz, R.; Torres, D.V. Minimally invasive lateral single-position surgery for multilevel degenerative lumbar spine disease: Feasibility and perioperative results in a single Latin-American spine center. Eur. Spine J. 2023, 32, 1688–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Goldberg, J.L.; McGrath, L.B.; Kirnaz, S.; Sommer, F.; Carnevale, J.A.; Medary, B.; Härtl, R. Single-Position Fluoroscopy-Guided Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Intraoperative Computed Tomography–Navigated Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation: Technical Report and Literature Review. Int. J. Spine Surg. 2022, 16, S9–S16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Guiroy, A.; Carazzo, C.; Camino-Willhuber, G.; Gagliardi, M.; Fernandes-Joaquim, A.; Cabrera, J.P.; Menezes, C.; Asghar, J. Single-Position Surgery versus Lateral-Then-Prone-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Literature Review. World Neurosurg. 2021, 151, e379–e386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hiyama, A.; Katoh, H.; Sakai, D.; Tanaka, M.; Sato, M.; Watanabe, M. Facet joint violation after single-position versus dual-position lateral interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: A comparison of two techniques. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2020, 78, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ohba, T.; Ebata, S.; Fujita, K.; Sato, H.; Haro, H. Percutaneous pedicle screw placements: Accuracy and rates of cranial facet joint violation using conventional fluoroscopy compared with intraoperative three-dimensional computed tomography computer navigation. Eur. Spine J. 2016, 25, 1775–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kim, M.-C.; Chung, H.-T.; Cho, J.-L.; Kim, D.-J.; Chung, N.-S. Factors affecting the accurate placement of percutaneous pedicle screws during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur. Spine J. 2011, 20, 1635–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Neo, M.; Sakamoto, T.; Fujibayashi, S.; Nakamura, T. The clinical risk of vertebral artery injury from cervical pedicle screws inserted in degenerative vertebrae. Spine 2005, 30, 2800–2805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pojskić, M.; Bopp, M.; Saß, B.; Kirschbaum, A.; Nimsky, C.; Carl, B. Intraoperative Computed Tomography-Based Navigation with Augmented Reality for Lateral Approaches to the Spine. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tan, Y.; Tanaka, M.; Sonawane, S.; Uotani, K.; Oda, Y.; Fujiwara, Y.; Arataki, S.; Yamauchi, T.; Takigawa, T.; Ito, Y. Comparison of Simultaneous Single-Position Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-arm Navigated Technique for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chang, C.-C.; Chang, H.-K.; Wu, J.-C.; Tu, T.-H.; Cheng, H.; Huang, W.-C. Comparison of Radiation Exposure Between O-Arm Navigated and C-Arm Guided Screw Placement in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. World Neurosurg. 2020, 139, e489–e495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. DePasse, J.M.; Palumbo, M.A.; Haque, M.; Eberson, C.P.; Daniels, A.H. Complications associated with prone positioning in elective spinal surgery. World J. Orthop. 2015, 6, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kwee, M.M.; Ho, Y.-H.; Rozen, W.M. The Prone Position During Surgery and its Complications: A Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines. Int. Surg. 2015, 100, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Warren, S.I.; Wadhwa, H.; Koltsov, J.C.B.; Michaud, J.B.; Cheng, I. One surgeon’s learning curve with single position lateral lumbar interbody fusion: Perioperative outcomes and complications. J. Spine Surg. 2021, 7, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hiyama, A.; Katoh, H.; Sakai, D.; Sato, M.; Tanaka, M.; Watanabe, M. Accuracy of Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement after Single-Position versus Dual-Position Insertion for Lateral Interbody Fusion and Pedicle Screw Fixation Using Fluoroscopy. Asian Spine J. 2022, 16, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sellin, J.N.; Mayer, R.R.; Hoffman, M.; Ropper, A.E. Simultaneous lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screws (SLIPS) with CT-guided navigation. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2018, 175, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Thomas, J.A.; Menezes, C.; Buckland, A.J.; Khajavi, K.; Ashayeri, K.; Braly, B.A.; Kwon, B.; Cheng, I.; Berjano, P. Single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion: An overview of terminology, concepts, rationale and the current evidence base. Eur. Spine J. 2022, 31, 2167–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Oba, H.; Ebata, S.; Takahashi, J.; Koyama, K.; Uehara, M.; Kato, H.; Haro, H.; Ohba, T. Pedicle Perforation While Inserting Screws Using O-arm Navigation During Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine 2018, 43, E1463–E1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 07114 g001
Figure 1. Photographs and the intraoperative CT navigation screen during PPS insertion in the oblique group, where the patients were placed in an oblique position of approximately 45° on a Jackson table. PPS, percutaneous pedicle screw. Yellow arrow denote Navigation pointer.
Figure 1. Photographs and the intraoperative CT navigation screen during PPS insertion in the oblique group, where the patients were placed in an oblique position of approximately 45° on a Jackson table. PPS, percutaneous pedicle screw. Yellow arrow denote Navigation pointer.
Jcm 12 07114 g001
Jcm 12 07114 g002
Figure 2. (A) Graph comparing the operative time among groups. (B) Graph comparing the estimated blood loss among groups. * p < 0.05. NS; not significant.
Figure 2. (A) Graph comparing the operative time among groups. (B) Graph comparing the estimated blood loss among groups. * p < 0.05. NS; not significant.
Jcm 12 07114 g002
Jcm 12 07114 g003
Figure 3. Axial CT and photographs of a representative case of the PPS downside placement in the lateral position; attention was needed to avoid a lateral breach. PPS, percutaneous pedicle screw. Yellow arrows indicate deviation outside of screw.
Figure 3. Axial CT and photographs of a representative case of the PPS downside placement in the lateral position; attention was needed to avoid a lateral breach. PPS, percutaneous pedicle screw. Yellow arrows indicate deviation outside of screw.
Jcm 12 07114 g003
Table 1. Preoperative demographics of patients.
Table 1. Preoperative demographics of patients.
Single Positionp
Dual Position
(n = 35)		Lateral
(n = 24)		Oblique
(n = 33)
Age * (years)70.2 ± 9.372.7 ± 12.073.0 ± 11.80.26
Sex (female/male)24/1119/526/70.53
BMI (kg/m2)23.1 ± 3.423.3 ± 4.722.8 ± 4.10.21
Fusion length *2.06 ± 0.691.75 ± 0.851.83 ± 0.890.19
Fused level of vertebra
L2–3847
L3–4968
L4–5342331
BMI, body mass index. * Mean ± standard deviation (SD).
Table 2. Surgical invasion and pedicle screw parameters.
Table 2. Surgical invasion and pedicle screw parameters.
Single Positionp
DP
(n = 35)		LD
(n = 24)		O
(n = 33)
Operative time (min)172.1 ± 42.5 *113.5 ± 34.4115.2 ± 36.7<0.001
Estimated blood loss (mL)75 ± 60.6140.9 ± 113102.6 ± 63.6<0.05
Screw parametersn = 198n = 148n = 188
Screw trajectory angle (°)
Upside34.8 ± 7.134.2 ± 7.634.1 ± 5.60.9
Downside 33.9 ± 6.630.1 ± 6.1 *33.6 ± 6.2<0.05
Accuracy of PPS placement (Grade) †
Grade 0 (Upside)91 (91.9)67 (90.5)86 (95.5)0.95
Grade 16 (6.1)4 (5.4)4 (4.3)0.85
Grade 22 (2.0)3 (4.1)4 (4.3)0.66
Grade 3000NS
Grade 0 (Downside)90 (91.0)58 (78.4) *87 (92.6)<0.05
Grade 17 (7.2)6 (9.7)4 (4.3)0.58
Grade 22 (2.0)6 (9.7)3 (3.2)0.16
Grade 304 *0<0.05
DP, dual position; LD, lateral decubitus; O, oblique; PPS, percutaneous pedicle screw. Mean ± standard deviation (SD). † Values are the number of screws (%). * p < 0.05. NS; not significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ohba, T.; Oda, K.; Tanaka, N.; Haro, H. The Utility and Appropriateness of Single-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-Arm-Based Navigation in the Novel Oblique Position. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7114. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227114

AMA Style

Ohba T, Oda K, Tanaka N, Haro H. The Utility and Appropriateness of Single-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-Arm-Based Navigation in the Novel Oblique Position. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(22):7114. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227114

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ohba, Tetsuro, Kotaro Oda, Nobuki Tanaka, and Hirotaka Haro. 2023. "The Utility and Appropriateness of Single-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-Arm-Based Navigation in the Novel Oblique Position" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 22: 7114. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227114

APA Style

Ohba, T., Oda, K., Tanaka, N., & Haro, H. (2023). The Utility and Appropriateness of Single-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-Arm-Based Navigation in the Novel Oblique Position. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(22), 7114. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227114

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop