Objective: The cortical bone trajectory (CBT) technology is an effective substitute for traditional pedicle screw (PS) technology. However, there is still controversy about the CBT screw technology placement strategy. The objective of this study was to simulate cortical screw placement with the help of three-dimensional (3D) software, to discuss the differences in screws between genders and vertebral segments, and to explore a safer and more efficient strategy for cortical screw placement.
Methods: Mimics Medical software was used to construct a 3D model of the lumbar spine, and the placement of CBT screws was simulated. The volume of each vertebral body from L1 to L5, the pedicle isthmus height (IH), the pedicle isthmus width (IW), and the sagittal vertebral distance (SAVD) were measured. The transverse distance (TD) and the longitudinal distance (LD) between the ideal starting point (SP) and the clinical SP (the intersection Q of the midline of the superior articular process and the horizontal line 1 mm below the transverse process) were measured. The cephalad angle (CA), lateral angle (LA), maximum screw diameter (MSD), maximum screw length (MSL) of each trajectory of the L1 to L5 vertebral bodies, and the percentage of the screw insertion depth (PSID) into the vertebral body were measured. Data were statistically analyzed using Student’s t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey’s test.
Results: Vertebral anatomical parameters and CBT screw parameters differed between males and females. Female patients had lower IH, IW, SAVD, CA, LA, MSD, and MSL than males. IH was greatest in L1 (male, 17.81 mm; female, 16.12 mm) and the smallest in L5 (male, 14.11 mm; female, 13.05 mm). IW was smallest in L1 (male, 8.89 mm; female, 7.37 mm) and greatest in L5 (male, 16.59 mm; female, 15.43 mm). The MSD of males was smallest in L1 (6.05 mm) and greatest in L3 (7.06 mm); the MSD of females was smallest in L1 (5.13 mm) and greatest in L4 (6.64 mm). MSL was greatest at L3 (male, 33.63 mm; female, 32.28 mm) and smallest at L5 (male, 31.25 mm; female, 29.97 mm). CA was smallest in L1 (male, 22.80°; female, 21.92°) and greatest in L3 (male, 25.29°; female, 24.33°). LA was smallest in L1 (male 12.37°, female 11.27°) and greatest in L5 (male 13.56°, female 12.96°). Among the males, TD was smallest at L1 (–0.51 mm) and greatest at L5 (1.37 mm), while LD was greatest at L2 (3.46 mm) and smallest at L5 (2.40 mm). In females, TD was greatest at L1 (0.12 mm) and smallest at L3 (–0.51 mm), while LD was greatest at L1 (3.69 mm) and smallest at L5 (2.08 mm). In the overall sample, the incidence of SAVD and PSID gradually increased from L1 to L5.
Conclusion: The optimal screw placement strategy for CBT screws varies significantly according to sex and vertebral body segments, particularly noting the specificity of screw placement at L5. The optimal screw placement strategy should be selected based on the patient’s sex and segment characteristics before surgery to maximize the safety and accuracy of CBT screw placement.
| [1] |
Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, Rodriguez-Canessa G, Lyons AS, Henson MA, et al. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J. 2009; 9: 366–373.
|
| [2] |
Li HM, Zhang RJ, Gao H, Jia CY, Xing T, Zhang JX, et al. Biomechanical fixation properties of the cortical bone trajectory in the osteoporotic lumbar spine. World Neurosurg. 2018; 119: e717–e727.
|
| [3] |
Phan K, Hogan J, Maharaj M, Mobbs RJ. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screw placement: a review of published reports. Orthop Surg. 2015; 7: 213–221.
|
| [4] |
Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Hynes RA, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, et al. Cortical bone trajectory for thoracic pedicle screws: a technical note. Clin Spine Surg. 2017; 30: E497–E504.
|
| [5] |
Zhang RJ, Li HM, Gao H, Jia CY, Xing T, Dong FL, et al. Cortical bone trajectory screws used to save failed traditional trajectory screws in the osteoporotic lumbar spine and vice versa: a human cadaveric biomechanical study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019; 30: 1–8.
|
| [6] |
Tortolani PJ, Stroh DA. Cortical bone trajectory technique for posterior spinal instrumentation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016; 24: 755–761.
|
| [7] |
Matsukawa K, Yato Y. Lumbar pedicle screw fixation with cortical bone trajectory: a review from anatomical and biomechanical standpoints. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2017; 1: 164–173.
|
| [8] |
Delgado-Fernandez J, García-Pallero MÁ, Blasco G, Pulido-Rivas P, Sola RG. Review of cortical bone trajectory: evidence of a new technique. Asian Spine J. 2017; 11: 817–831.
|
| [9] |
Matsukawa K, Kaito T, Abe Y. Accuracy of cortical bone trajectory screw placement using patient-specific template guide system. Neurosurg Rev. 2020; 43: 1135–1142.
|
| [10] |
Lee CK, Kim D, An SB, Shin DA, Ha Y, Kim KN, et al. An optimal cortical bone trajectory technique to prevent early surgical complications. Br J Neurosurg. 2024; 38: 208–214.
|
| [11] |
Menon N, Turcotte J, Speciale A, Patton CM. Cortical bone trajectory instrumentation provides favorable perioperative outcomes compared to pedicle screws for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Orthop. 2020; 22: 146–150.
|
| [12] |
Petrone S, Marengo N, Ajello M, Lavorato A, Penner F, Cofano F, et al. Cortical bone trajectory technique’s outcomes and procedures for posterior lumbar fusion: a retrospective study. J Clin Neurosci. 2020; 76: 25–30.
|
| [13] |
Kaye ID, Prasad SK, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS. The cortical bone trajectory for pedicle screw insertion. JBJS Rev. 2017; 5: e13.
|
| [14] |
Cofano F, Marengo N, Ajello M, Penner F, Mammi M, Petrone S, et al. The era of cortical bone trajectory screws in spine surgery: a qualitative review with rating of evidence. World Neurosurg. 2020; 134: 14–24.
|
| [15] |
Zhang L, Tian N, Yang J, Ni W, Jin L. Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020; 21: 536.
|
| [16] |
Boucher HH. A method of spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1959; 41-B: 248–259.
|
| [17] |
Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Kifune M, Arand M, Wen L, Chen A. Validity of the three-column theory of thoracolumbar fractures. A biomechanic investigation. Spine. 1995; 20: 1122–1127.
|
| [18] |
Galbusera F, Volkheimer D, Reitmaier S, Berger-Roscher N, Kienle A, Wilke HJ. Pedicle screw loosening: a clinically relevant complication? Eur Spine J. 2015; 24: 1005–1016.
|
| [19] |
Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Nemoto O, Imabayashi H, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. Morphometric measurement of cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screw insertion using computed tomography. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 26: E248–E253.
|
| [20] |
Iwatsuki K, Yoshimine T, Ohnishi Y, Ninomiya K, Ohkawa T. Isthmus-guided cortical bone trajectory for pedicle screw insertion. Orthop Surg. 2014; 6: 244–248.
|
| [21] |
Ivanov AA, Faizan A, Ebraheim NA, Yeasting R, Goel VK. The effect of removing the lateral part of the pars interarticularis on stress distribution at the neural arch in lumbar foraminal microdecompression at l3-l4 and l4-l5: anatomic and finite element investigations. Spine. 2007; 32: 2462–2466.
|
| [22] |
Matur AV, Palmisciano P, Duah HO, Chilakapati SS, Cheng JS, Adogwa O. Robotic and navigated pedicle screws are safer and more accurate than fluoroscopic freehand screws: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2023; 23: 197–208.
|
| [23] |
Gao H, Zhang R, Jia C, Xing T, Zhang J, Dong F, et al. Novel placement of cortical bone trajectory screws in the lumbar spine: a radiographic and cadaveric study. Clin Spine Surg. 2018; 31: E329–E336.
|
| [24] |
Li B, Jiang B, Fu Z, Zhang D, Wang T. Accurate determination of isthmus of lumbar pedicle: a morphometric study using reformatted computed tomographic images. Spine. 2004; 29: 2438–2444.
|
| [25] |
Alfonso M, Palacio P, Bastarrika G, Villas C. Does the shape of the l5 vertebral body depend on the height of ct slices in the pedicle? Evaluation of the shape of the l5 vertebral body with a multicut ct scan. Spine. 2008; 33: E1–E5.
|
| [26] |
Mobbs RJ. The “medio-latero-superior trajectory technique”: an alternative cortical trajectory for pedicle fixation. Orthop Surg. 2013; 5: 56–59.
|
| [27] |
Matsukawa K, Yanai Y, Fujiyoshi K, Kato T, Yato Y. Depth of vertebral screw insertion using a cortical bone trajectory technique in lumbar spinal fusion: radiological significance of a long cortical bone trajectory. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021; 35: 601–606.
|
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PDF
