Original ArticleComparative Study of Cortical Bone Trajectory-Pedicle Screw (Cortical Screw) Versus Conventional Pedicle Screw in Single-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 2-Year Post Hoc Analysis from Prospectively Randomized Data
Introduction
Since the development of the pedicle screw (PS) technique, posterior instrumentation with PS has been an irreplaceable option in fusion surgery for lumbar pathologies.1, 2, 3 Surgeons have pointed out procedure-related limitations of PS, especially problems relating to a PS insertion point that is located laterally and close to the superior facet.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 However, as the result of a lack of alternatives, PS continues to be used in posterior lumbar fusion surgery such as in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).
A newer PS system using the cortical bone trajectory, also called the cortical bone trajectory-pedicle screw (CS) in the literature, has been introduced as an alternative to conventional PS and is becoming a popular technique.10 However, some concerns regarding the use of CS in lumbar fusion surgery also have been documented, as described herein. First, it can be technically demanding as the result of an unfamiliar entry point and trajectory for CS placement. However, previous studies have revealed that CS placement is the more favorable procedure for surgeons compared with PS placement, because of less skin incision and muscle dissection, a more medially located entry point, and a safer screw trajectory.11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Second, because of the shorter length and the smaller diameter of the CS, spine surgeons have concerns about the durability of the CS to endure mechanical stress and maintain screw strength compared with the PS. Several biomechanical studies have demonstrated that the insertional torque of CS was equivalent or greater than that of the PS and that the CS provided similar stiffness in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation tests as the PS.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Finally, because of the limited number of clinical studies on the CS technique, surgeons are not completely convinced whether using CS in PLIF can produce similar clinical and radiologic outcomes in comparison with PS in PLIF.3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 To our knowledge, only 1 prospective randomized study comparing CS and PS in PLIF has been reported,11 and it indicates similar fusion rates and clinical outcomes on 1-year follow-up. However, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no studies reporting comparative outcomes between CS and PS in PLIF over longer follow-up periods. Such studies are needed to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of CS as an alternative to PS in PLIF.
In our study, we aimed to describe the postoperative outcomes of CS in PLIF and compare them with outcomes of PLIF using PS over a 2-year follow-up period. Our study was a prospectively randomized double-arm parallel design focused on fusion rate, pain intensity, radiologic outcomes, clinical outcomes, and complications. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report 2-year postoperative outcomes of PLIF using CS and compare them with the outcomes after PLIF with PS with a prospective randomized design.
Section snippets
Population
The institutional review board approved the current study. In the current study, we aimed to evaluate the 2-year outcomes of PLIF with CS versus PLIF with PS, using prospectively collected data of patients. Our previous study reported the postoperative outcomes of PLIF with CS versus PLIF with PS under a prospectively randomized noninferiority design over a 1-year follow-up.11 Thus, our current study design was a post-hoc comparative study to compare the postoperative outcomes of PLIF surgery
Patient Characteristics
Originally, 79 patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups (39 patients in group A with PS and 40 patients in group B with CS). During a 2-year follow-up, 7 patients were dropped out; the remaining 72 patients (37 in group A and 35 in group B) were analyzed for the present study (Figure 2). Patients were similar between the groups with respect to demographic characteristics such as age, sex, smoking status, height, weight, body mass index, and preoperative lumbar pathology (Table 1).
Primary Outcome Measure (Fusion Rate)
Based on
Discussion
CS has been reported to offer several advantages that may overcome the limitations of the PS. Because the CS has a caudomedial insertion point that is far from the superior facet joint in comparison with the PS, the CS may minimize the superior facet joint violation and be performed with less lateral muscle dissection and a shorter skin incision, possibly reducing surgery-related morbidity.11, 12, 13, 15, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Moreover, its medial-to-lateral–directed trajectory may
Conclusions
The current study is the first to evaluate 2-year postoperative outcomes after single-level PLIF using PS or CS under a prospective, randomized, double-arm, noninferiority design. The fusion rate, which was the primary endpoint of the current study, revealed no significant difference between the 2 groups. Patient satisfaction was significantly greater in the CS group than in the PS group at the 1-month follow-up. However, there were no significant differences at the 1-year and 2-year follow-up
References (37)
- et al.
The impact of generalized joint laxity on the clinical and radiological outcomes of single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Spine J
(2015) - et al.
Clinical and radiological relationship between posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral lumbar fusion
Surg Neurol
(2005) - et al.
Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws
Spine J
(2009) - et al.
The comparison of pedicle screw and cortical screw in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective randomized noninferiority trial
Spine J
(2015) - et al.
Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with conventional and cortical bone trajectory
Clin Neurol Neurosurg
(2016) - et al.
Differences in bone mineral density of fixation points between lumbar cortical and traditional pedicle screws
Spine J
(2016) - et al.
Lumbar spinal fixation with cortical bone trajectory pedicle screws in 79 patients with degenerative disease: perioperative outcomes and complications
World Neurosurg
(2016) - et al.
Comparison of posterolateral lumbar fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for patients younger than 60 years with isthmic spondylolisthesis
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
(2014) - 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) - et al.
A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis
Eur Spine J
(2013)
Superior articulating facet violation: percutaneous versus open techniques: clinical article
J Neurosurg Spine
Risk factors of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery following lumbar spinal fusion: comparison of PLIF and PLF
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Posterior spinal fusion using pedicle screws
Orthopedics
The “medio-latero-superior trajectory technique”: an alternative cortical trajectory for pedicle fixation: MLST technique
Orthop Surg
Lumbar pedicle cortical bone trajectory screw
Chin Med J
Clinical outcomes during the learning curve of MIDline Lumbar Fusion (MIDLF®) using the cortical bone trajectory
Acta Neurochir
Biomechanical evaluation of fixation strength among different sizes of pedicle screws using the cortical bone trajectory: what is the ideal screw size for optimal fixation?
Acta Neurochir
Cited by (36)
Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of lumbar spinal stenosis, 2021 - Secondary publication
2023, Journal of Orthopaedic ScienceLong-Term Outcome After Midline Lumbar Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spine Instability Due to Degenerative Disease
2021, World NeurosurgeryCitation Excerpt :Signs of screw loosening on a 2-year CT scan were reported in 11.4% of cases, with no case of screw pullout or pedicle fracture.8 Regarding relief of symptoms and patient satisfaction, MIDLF is superior to PLIF 1 month after surgery, with clinical results gradually leveling off over time.8,10,14 Moreover, MIDLF is a promising option for treatment of both 1-level and 2-level spinal instability, with the incidence of adjacent segment disease and rate of fusion nonsignificantly lower with CBT screws compared with TP screws.15,16
Pedicle screws versus cortical screws in posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2021, Spine JournalCitation Excerpt :The detailed characteristics of each study are presented in Table. The study by Lee et al. [2] was a RCT. Thus, based on the Cochrane Handbook 5.1 Assessment Tool, the risk of bias was assessed.
Cortical screw fixation using CT-navigation coupled with real-time electrophysiological monitoring of individual screw placement for unstable degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis
2021, Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery: Advanced Techniques and Case ManagementCitation Excerpt :Studies using kinetic models have shown that the use of cortical screws provided up to a 30% increase in tensile strength of individual screws when compared to traditional pedicle screws, as well as equivalent multidirectional stress when combined with an interbody fusion device [4–6]. To our knowledge, studies focused on patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis have been limited, with only one article having a CBT treated sample size of 95 patients [7–16]. This study describes a less-invasive surgical technique of using cortical screws for posterior lumbar fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis combining 3D neuronavigation (Medtronic Inc.
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that the article content was composed in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.