Comparison of facet fusion rates and clinical outcomes between cortical bone trajectory screw and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Tomohiro Miyashita; Kei Kato; Atsushi Yunde; Hiromi Ataka; Takaaki Tanno

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.02.017

Comparison of facet fusion rates and clinical outcomes between cortical bone trajectory screw and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Spine J. 2024 Mar 2:S1529-9430(24)00102-5. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2024.02.017. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Tomohiro Miyashita¹, Kei Kato², Atsushi Yunde², Hiromi Ataka³, Takaaki Tanno³

Affiliations

¹ Spine Center, Matsudo City General Hospital, 993-1 Sendabori, Matsudo, Chiba, 270-2296, Japan. Electronic address: tommiya3@yahoo.co.jp.
² Spine Center, Matsudo City General Hospital, 993-1 Sendabori, Matsudo, Chiba, 270-2296, Japan.
³ Spine Center, Matsudo Orthopaedic Hospital, 1-161, Asahi-cho, Matsudo, Chiba, 271-0043, Japan.

PMID: 38437917
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2024.02.017

Abstract

Background context: Cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws have been introduced as an alternative technique for pedicle screw (PS) insertion because they have greater contact with the cortex and a greater uniaxial pullout load than traditional PS. CBT screwing can also minimize muscle dissection. However, CBT screws and traditional PSs have not yet been compared in terms of fusion rates and clinical outcomes for particular operative procedures.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the fusion rate and clinical outcomes of facet fusion (FF) fixed with CBT screws (CBT-FF) and to compare them with those of FF fixed with percutaneous PS (PPS-FF).

Study design: Retrospective study.

Patient sample: Records of 68 patients who underwent CBT-FF for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with at least 1 year of follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. The control group comprised 143 patients who underwent PPS-FF under the same conditions.

Outcome measures: Computed tomography was performed to confirm fusion. Therapeutic effectiveness was assessed as a clinical outcome using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and visual analog scale (VAS) preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The rate of revision surgery was also calculated. Intraoperative blood loss was measured.

Methods: Fusion rate, clinical outcomes, revision surgery rate, and intraoperative blood loss of CBT-FF and PPS-FF were compared.

Results: The CBT-FF and PPS-FF fusion rates were 91.2% and 90.1%, respectively. The JOABPEQ category scores demonstrated therapeutic effectiveness in 74.5% and 77.1% of the patients for low back pain; the corresponding proportions for walking ability were 84.7% and 89.3%, respectively. No significant differences in therapeutic effectiveness were observed for any category, including the RMDQ and VAS scores for buttock and lower limb pain. Three patients required revision surgery for adjacent segment disease between 6 months and 3.5 years after CBT-FF (revision surgery rate, 4.4%), whereas the revision surgery rate for PPS-FF was 6.3% (9/143 cases). Average intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the CBT-FF group than in the PPS-FF group.

Conclusions: Both procedures were equally useful in terms of fusion rate and clinical outcomes for DLS management.

Keywords: Adjacent segment disease; Facet joint fusion; Fusion rate; In situ fusion; Posterolateral fusion; Revision surgery.