Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement in the Lumbar Spine: A Comparison Study Between the Novel Guidance System and the Conventional Fluoroscopy Method.

STUDY DESIGN: The clinical study was conducted on 145 patients who received either a novel guidance method or a conventional fluoroscopic method for the percutaneous pedicle screw placement in the lumbar spine.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to introduce a novel guidance method for percutaneous pedicle screw placement and to compare it with the conventional fluoroscopic method.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Conventional fluoroscopic method was associated with a long screw placement and a more fluoroscopy time. The novel guidance system effectively minimized the insertion and the radiation exposure times.

METHODS: A total of 145 patients were divided into 2 groups. A total of 65 patients (group A) underwent 152 percutaneous pedicle screw fixation by conventional fluoroscopic method. A total of 80 patients (group B) underwent 185 percutaneous pedicle screw fixation by a novel guidance method. Age, body mass index, and sex ratio were comparable between the 2 groups (P>0.05). The time of insertion, radiation exposure, and accuracy of the screw placement between the 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS: The mean time for a single pedicle screw placement was found to be 15.11±3.32 minutes in group A and 10.35±2.82 minutes in group B, respectively. The average radiation exposure was 9.06±2.15 s in group B and 13.07±3.06 s in group A, respectively. The differences were statistically significant for both screw placement and radiation exposure times (P<0.05). A total of 131 screws (86.2%) in group A and 163 screws (88.1%) in group B were perfectly located within the pedicle. The statistical difference was not significant (χ=0.277, P=0.598).

CONCLUSIONS: The novel guidance system significantly reduced the insertion time and radiation exposure, provided the screw placement was accurately performed when compared with the conventional method.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app