Kun-Tae Kim, Myung-Geun Song, Eun-Chang Lee, Min-Seok Seo, Dong-Yeong Lee, Dong- Hee Kim

Can the cortical bone trajectory screw technique be an alternative method to the pedicle screw in posterior lumbar fusion? A systematic review and meta- analysis

Objective: The aim of this study was to verify the practicability of the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) method by comparing the clinical outcomes including the complications between the CBT method and pedicle screws (PSs). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), web of Science, and SCOPUS electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published through March 2021 that compared the outcomes of the CBT and PSs. The data search, extraction, analysis, and quality assessment were performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The clinical and radiological outcomes of both techniques were evaluated using various outcome measures. Results: Sixteen studies with a total of 1173 patients were included in the study. The outcomes in the meta-analysis indicated that the use of CBT fixation showed better results for overall complications (P < 0.0001), symptomatic adjacent segment disease (sASD) (P = 0.007), superior facet joint violation (SFJV) rate (P = 0.007), operating time (P = 0.007), intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.00001), incision length (P = 0.002), length of hospital stay (P = 0.0006), and revision rates (P = 0.02). However, there were no statistically significant differences in fusion rates or detailed complications including hardware complications, wound infections (all P > 0.05) between the CBT method and PS fixation groups. Conclusions: The present study revealed that the CBT method was associated with higher functional recovery, lower surgical morbidity rates, lower revision rates, and lower overall complication rates including sASD and SFJV rates. However, both the CBT method and PSs had similar fusion rates, complications including hardware complications (screw malposition, screw loosening, and screw pullout) and wound infections. Thus, the CBT method did not outperform the PSs in all aspects. Therefore, it is recommended to select a surgical method in consideration of the patient’s bone mineral density, the condition of the pars interarticularis, or the skill level of the surgeon. Prognostic evaluation through long-term follow-up is required, and more high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to verify and strengthen our results

PDF

___

1. Boucher HH. A method of spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1959;41-B(2):248- 259. 10.1302/0301-620X.41B2.248
2. Cheng X, Zhang K, Sun X, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach with transforaminal lumbar inter- body fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Spine J. 2017;17(8):1127-1133. 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.011
3. Lee N, Kim KN, Yi S, et al. Comparison of outcomes of anterior, posterior, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery at a single lumbar level with degenerative spinal disease. World Neurosurg. 2017;101:216-226. 10.1016/j. wneu.2017.01.114
4. Athanasakopoulos M, Mavrogenis AF, Triantafyllopoulos G, Koufos S, Pneu- maticos SG. Posterior spinal fusion using pedicle screws. Orthopedics. 2013;36 (7):e951-957. 10.3928/01477447-20130624-28
5. DeWald CJ, Stanley T. Instrumentation-related complications of multilevel fusions for adult spinal deformity patients over age 65: Surgical considerations and treatment options in patients with poor bone quality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(19 Suppl):S144-151. 10.1097/01.brs.0000236893.65878.39
6. Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, et al. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. The Spine Journal. 2009;9(5):366-373. 10.1016/j.spinee.2008. 07.008
7. Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. Biomechanical evaluation of the fixation strength of lumbar pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory: A finite element study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(4):471-478. 10.3171/2015.1.SPINE141103
8. Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Kato T, Imabayashi H, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. In vivo analysis of insertional torque during pedicle screwing using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine. 2014;39(4):E240-E245. 10.1097/BRS. 0000000000000116
9. Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Hynes RA, et al. Comparison of pedicle screw fixation strength among different transpedicular trajectories: A finite element study. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(7):301-307. 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000258
10. Lee GW, Son JH, Ahn MW, Kim HJ, Yeom JS. The comparison of pedicle screw and cortical screw in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A prospective rando- mized noninferiority trial. Spine J. 2015;15(7):1519-1526. 10.1016/j.spinee. 2015.02.038
11. Sakaura H, Miwa T, Yamashita T, Kuroda Y, Ohwada T. Cortical bone trajec- tory screw fixation versus traditional pedicle screw fixation for 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: Comparison of surgical outcomes for 2-level degen- erative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(1):57-62. 10.3171/ 2017.5.SPINE161154
12. Sakaura H, Miwa T, Yamashita T, Kuroda Y, Ohwada T. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion using traditional pedicle screw fixation for degenera- tive lumbar spondylolisthesis: A comparative study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25 (5):591-595. 10.3171/2016.3.SPINE151525
13. Takenaka S, Mukai Y, Tateishi K, Hosono N, Fuji T, Kaito T. Clinical outcomes after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: Comparison of cortical bone trajectory and conventional pedicle screw insertion. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(10):E1411- E1418 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000514
14. Akpolat YT, Inceoglu S, Kinne N, Hunt D, Cheng WK. Fatigue performance of cortical bone trajectory screw compared with standard trajectory pedicle screw. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(6):E335-341. 10.1097/BRS. 0000000000001233
15. Perez-Orribo L, Kalb S, Reyes PM, Chang SW, Crawford NR. Biomechanics of lumbar cortical screw-rod fixation versus pedicle screw-rod fixation with and without interbody support. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(8):635-641. 10.1097/ BRS.0b013e318279a95e
16. Glennie RA, Dea N, Kwon BK, Street JT. Early clinical results with cortically based pedicle screw trajectory for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(6):972-975. 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.01.010
7. Kaye ID, Prasad SK, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS. The cortical bone trajectory for pedicle screw insertion. JBJS Rev. 2017;5(8):e13. 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.16.00120
18. Phan K, Ramachandran V, Tran TM, et al. Systematic review of cortical bone trajectory versus pedicle screw techniques for lumbosacral spine fusion. J Spine Surg. 2017;3(4):679-688. 10.21037/jss.2017.11.03
19. Ding H, Han B, Hai Y, et al. The feasibility of assessing the cortical bone trajectory screw placement accuracy using a traditional pedicle screw insertion evaluation system. Clinical Spine Surgery. 2021;34:(2). 10.1097/BSD. 0000000000001059
20. Kolz JM, Pinter ZW, Bydon M, Sebastian AS. Controversies in spine surgery: Is a cortical bone trajectory superior to traditional pedicle screw trajectory? Clin Spine Surg. 2020. 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000965
21. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343(oct182):d5928- d5928. 10.1136/bmj.d5928
22. Chen YR, Deb S, Pham L, Singh H. Minimally invasive lumbar pedicle screw fixation using cortical bone trajectory - a prospective cohort study on post- operative pain outcomes. Cureus. 2016;8(7):e714.
23. Hung CW, Wu MF, Hong RT, Weng MJ, Yu GF, Kao CH. Comparison of multi- fidus muscle atrophy after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with conven- tional and cortical bone trajectory. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 2016;145:41-45. 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.03.005
24. Chin KPF, Coombs A, Elsharkawy M, Packer C, Hothem ESJ. Clinical outcomes with midline cortical bone trajectory pedicle screws versus tradi- tional pedicle screws in moving lumbar fusions from hospitals to outpati- ent surgery centers. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30:E791-E797. 10.1097/BSD. 0000000000000436
25. Peng J, Zhan Y, Liu Y, Zong Y, Mao Y. [comparison of effectiveness of cortical bone trajectory screw fixation and pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar interbody fusion]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi = Zhongguo Xiufu Chongjian Waike Zazhi = Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstruc- tive Surgery. 2017;31(11):1341-1345.
26. Lee GW, Ahn MW. Comparative study of cortical bone trajectory-pedicle screw (cortical screw) versus conventional pedicle screw in single-level posterior lum- bar interbody fusion: A 2-year post hoc analysis from prospectively randomized data. World Neurosurg. 2018;109:e194-e202. 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.137
27. Lee GW, Shin JH. Comparative study of two surgical techniques for proximal adjacent segment pathology after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedi- cle screws: Fusion extension using conventional pedicle screw vs cortical bone trajectory-pedicle screw (cortical screw). World Neurosurg. 2018;117:e154- e161. 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.218
28. Malcolm JG, Moore MK, Choksh FH, Ahmad FU, Refai D. Comparing cortical trajectory transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions against pedicle trajectory transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions and posterolateral fusions: A retrospective cohort study of 90-day outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2018;83 (6):1234-1240. 10.1093/neuros/nyx619
29. Marengo N, Ajello M, Pecoraro MF, et al. Cortical bone trajectory screws in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: Minimally invasive surgery for maximal muscle sparing-a prospective comparative study with the traditional open technique. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:7424568. 10.1155/2018/7424568
30. Hoffman H, Verhave B, Jalal MS, Beutler T, Galgano MA, Chin LS. Comparison of cortical bone trajectory screw placement using the midline lumbar fusion technique to traditional pedicle screws: A case-control study. Int J Spine Surg. 2019;13(1):33-38. 10.14444/6005
31. Liu YZ, Hai Y, Zhang XN, et al. [comparison of cortical bone trajectory screw fixation and pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar fusion]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2019;99(19):1473-1478.
32. Sakaura H, Ikegami D, Fujimori T, et al. Early cephalad adjacent segment degeneration after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A comparative study between cortical bone trajectory screw fixation and traditional trajectory screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;32(2):155-159. 10.3171/2019.8.SPINE19631
33. Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of fixa- tion strength among different sizes of pedicle screws using the cortical bone trajectory: What is the ideal screw size for optimal fixation? Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(3):465-471. 10.1007/s00701-016-2705-8
34. Kojima K, Asamoto S, Kobayashi Y, Ishikawa M, Fukui Y. Cortical bone trajectory and traditional trajectory—a radiological evaluation of screw- bone contact. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2015;157(7):1173-1178. 10.1007/ s00701-015-2432-6
35. Mullin JP, Perlmutter B, Schmidt E, Benzel E, Steinmetz MP. Radiographic feasibility study of cortical bone trajectory and traditional pedicle screw dual trajectories. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(6):727-732. 10.3171/2016.4. SPINE151483
36. Cofano F, Marengo N, Ajello M, 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. 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.10.079
37. Oxland TR, Lund T. Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combina- tion with posterior fixation: A literature review. Eur Spine J. 2000;9 Suppl 1 (Suppl1):S95-101. 10.1007/PL00010028
38. Li HM, Zhang RJ, Gao H, et al. Biomechanical fixation properties of the cortical bone trajectory in the osteoporotic lumbar spine. World Neurosurg. 2018;119: e717-e727. 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.253
39. Oshino H, Sakakibara T, Inaba T, Yoshikawa T, Kato T, Kasai Y. A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10:125. 10.1186/s13018-015- 0270-0
40. Lee CK, Kim D, An SB, et al. An optimal cortical bone trajectory technique to prevent early surgical complications. British Journal of Neurosurgery. 2020;1-7.
41. Cheng WK, Akpolat YT, Inceoglu S, Patel S, Danisa OA. Pars and pedicle fracture and screw loosening associated with cortical bone trajectory: A case series and proposed mechanism through a cadaveric study. Spine J. 2016;16(2): e59-65. 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.09.046
42. Patel SS, Cheng WK, Danisa OA. Early complications after instrumentation of the lumbar spine using cortical bone trajectory technique. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2016;24:63-67. 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.07.018
43. Ninomiya K, Iwatsuki K, Ohnishi YI, Ohkawa T, Yoshimine T. Significance of the pars interarticularis in the cortical bone trajectory screw technique: An in vivo insertional torque study. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(5):901-906. 10.4184/asj. 2016.10.5.901
44. Matsukawa K, Kato T, Yato Y, et al. Incidence and risk factors of adjacent cranial facet joint violation following pedicle screw insertion using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(14):E851-856. 10. 1097/BRS.0000000000001459
45. Kim HJ, Chun HJ, Kang KT, et al. The biomechanical effect of pedicle screws’ insertion angle and position on the superior adjacent segment in 1 segment lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(19):1637-1644. 10.1097/BRS. 0b013e31823f2115
46. Lai PL, Chen LH, Niu CC, Fu TS, Chen WJ. Relation between laminectomy and development of adjacent segment instability after lumbar fusion with pedicle fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(22):2527-2532. 10.1097/01.brs. 0000144408.02918.20
47. Kim BD, Hsu WK, De Oliveira GSJr., Saha S, Kim JY. Operative duration as an independent risk factor for postoperative complications in single-level lumbar fusion: An analysis of 4588 surgical cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39 (6):510-520. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000163
48. Phan K, Kim JS, Capua JD, et al. Impact of operation time on 30-day complica- tions after adult spinal deformity surgery. Global Spine J. 2017;7(7):664-671. 10. 1177/2192568217701110