PDF herunterladen
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2021; 82(03): 262-269
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715485
Technical Note

Simulation with 3D Neuronavigation for Learning Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Placement

Juan Delgado-Fernández 
1   Division of Neurosurgery University Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
,
Natalia Frade-Porto
2   Division of Neurosurgery, University Hospital La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
,
Guillermo Blasco
2   Division of Neurosurgery, University Hospital La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
,
Patricia Gonzalez-Tarno
2   Division of Neurosurgery, University Hospital La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
,
Ricardo Gil-Simoes
2   Division of Neurosurgery, University Hospital La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
,
Paloma Pulido
2   Division of Neurosurgery, University Hospital La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
,
R.G. Sola
3   Department of Innovation in Neurosurgery, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
4   Neurosurgical Department Hospital Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Madrid, Spain
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background and Objective Learning a new technique in neurosurgery is a big challenge especially for trainees. In recent years, simulations and simulators got into the focus as a teaching tool. Our objective is to propose a simulator for placement of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws to improve results and reduce complications.

Methods We have created a platform consisting of a sawbone navigated with a 3D fluoroscope to familiarize our trainees and consultants with CBT technique and later implement it in our department. Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Physician Performance Diagnostic Inventory Scale (PPDI) were obtained before and after the use of the simulator by the five participants in the study. Patients who were operated on after the implementation of the technique were retrospectively reviewed.

Results During the simulation, there were 4 cases of pedicle breach out of 24 screws inserted (16.6%). After having completed simulation, participants demonstrated an improvement in OSATS and PPDI (p = 0.039 and 0.042, respectively). Analyzing the answers to the different items of the tests, participants mainly improved in the knowledge (p = 0.038), the performance (p = 0.041), and understanding of the procedure (p = 0.034). In our retrospective series, eight patients with L4–L5 instability were operated on using CBT, improving their Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (preoperative ODI 58.5 [SD 16.7] vs. postoperative ODI 31 [SD 13.4]; p = 0.028). One intraoperative complication due to a dural tear was observed. In the follow-up, we found a case of pseudoarthrosis and a facet joint violation, but no other complications related to misplacement, pedicle fracture, or hardware failure.

Conclusion The simulation we have created is useful for the implementation of CBT. In our study, consultants and trainees have valued very positively the learning obtained using the system. Moreover, simulation facilitated the learning of the technique and the understanding of surgical anatomy. We hope that simulation helps reducing complications in the future.

Keywords

cortical bone trajectory - simulation - neurosurgical training - complications.


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 22. November 2019

Angenommen: 23. März 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
01. Dezember 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Volbers B, Wagner I, Willfarth W, Doerfler A, Schwab S, Staykov D. Intraventricular fibrinolysis does not increase perihemorrhagic edema after intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2013; 44 (02) 362-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Macdonald RL. Editorial: see one, simulate fifty, then do one?. J Neurosurg 2014; 121 (02) 225-227 , discussion 226–227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Weinstock P, Rehder R, Prabhu SP, Forbes PW, Roussin CJ, Cohen AR. Creation of a novel simulator for minimally invasive neurosurgery: fusion of 3D printing and special effects. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2017; 20 (01) 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bergeson RK, Schwend RM, DeLucia T, Silva SR, Smith JE, Avilucea FR. How accurately do novice surgeons place thoracic pedicle screws with the free hand technique?. Spine 2008; 33 (15) E501-E507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ray WZ, Ganju A, Harrop JS, Hoh DJ. Developing an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion simulator for neurosurgical resident training. Neurosurgery 2013; 73 (Suppl. 01) 100-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Krishnaney AA. Incorporating simulators into neurosurgical education. World Neurosurg 2015; 84 (06) 1527-1529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Spicer MA, Apuzzo MLJ. Virtual reality surgery: neurosurgery and the contemporary landscape. Neurosurgery 2003; 52 (03) 489-497 , discussion 496–497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chan S, Conti F, Salisbury K, Blevins NH. Virtual reality simulation in neurosurgery: technologies and evolution. Neurosurgery 2013; 72 (Suppl. 01) 154-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Craven CL, Cooke M, Rangeley C, Alberti SJMM, Murphy M. Developing a pediatric neurosurgical training model. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2018; 21 (03) 329-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Milburn JA, Khera G, Hornby ST, Malone PSC, Fitzgerald JEF. Introduction, availability and role of simulation in surgical education and training: review of current evidence and recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training. Int J Surg 2012; 10 (08) 393-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Marcus H, Vakharia V, Kirkman MA, Murphy M, Nandi D. Practice makes perfect? The role of simulation-based deliberate practice and script-based mental rehearsal in the acquisition and maintenance of operative neurosurgical skills. Neurosurgery 2013; 72 (Suppl. 01) 124-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Luciano CJ, Banerjee PP, Bellotte B. et al. Learning retention of thoracic pedicle screw placement using a high-resolution augmented reality simulator with haptic feedback. Neurosurgery 2011; 69 (1, Suppl Operative): ons14-ons19, discussion ons19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gragnaniello C, Abou-Hamden A, Mortini P. et al. Complex spine pathology simulator: an innovative tool for advanced spine surgery training. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2016; 77 (06) 515-522
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gasco J, Patel A, Ortega-Barnett J. et al. Virtual reality spine surgery simulation: an empirical study of its usefulness. Neurol Res 2014; 36 (11) 968-973
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Boody BS, Rosenthal BD, Jenkins TJ, Patel AA, Savage JW, Hsu WK. The effectiveness of bioskills training for simulated open lumbar laminectomy. Global Spine J 2017; 7 (08) 794-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gonzalvo A, Fitt G, Liew S. et al. The learning curve of pedicle screw placement: how many screws are enough?. Spine 2009; 34 (21) E761-E765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Delgado-Fernández J, Pulido P, García-Pallero MÁ, Blasco G, Frade-Porto N, Sola RG. Image guidance in transdiscal fixation for high-grade spondylolisthesis in adults with correct spinal balance. Neurosurg Focus 2018; 44 (01) E9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC. et al. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J 2009; 9 (05) 366-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dabbous B, Brown D, Tsitlakidis A, Arzoglou V. Clinical outcomes during the learning curve of MIDline Lumbar Fusion (MIDLF®) using the cortical bone trajectory. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2016; 158 (07) 1413-1420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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 (05) 817-831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Asamoto S, Kojima K, Winking M, Jödicke A, Ishikawa M, Ishihara S, Deinsberger W, Muto J, Nishiyama M, Asamoto S. et al. Optimized Screw Trajectory for Lumbar Cortical Bone Trajectory Pedicle Screws Based on Clinical Outcome: Evidence Favoring the Buttress Effect Theory. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2018; Nov; 79 (06) 464-470
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Snyder LA, Martinez-Del-Campo E, Neal MT. et al. Lumbar spinal fixation with cortical bone trajectory pedicle screws in 79 patients with degenerative disease: perioperative outcomes and complications. World Neurosurg 2016; 88: 205-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brasiliense LBC, Lazaro BCR, Reyes PM. et al. Characteristics of immediate and fatigue strength of a dual-threaded pedicle screw in cadaveric spines. Spine J 2013; 13 (08) 947-956
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Iwatsuki K, Yoshimine T, Ohnishi Y, Ninomiya K, Ohkawa T. Isthmus-guided cortical bone trajectory for pedicle screw insertion. Orthop Surg 2014; 6 (03) 244-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Delgado-Fernández J, Pulido Rivas P, Gil-Simoes R, de Sola RG. How I do it? Lumbar cortical bone trajectory fixation with image-guided neuronavigation. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2019; 161 (12) 2423-2428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R. et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 1997; 84 (02) 273-278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 2000; 25 (22) 2940-2952 , discussion 2952
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ericsson A, Krampe R, Tesch-Romer C. The role of deliberate practice in the aquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev 1993; 100 (03) 363-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Silva F, Silva PS, Vaz R, Pereira P. Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) with cortical screws: initial experience and learning curve. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2019; 161 (12) 2415-2420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dayani F, Chen YR, Johnson E. et al. Minimally invasive lumbar pedicle screw fixation using cortical bone trajectory: screw accuracy, complications, and learning curve in 100 screw placements. J Clin Neurosci 2019; 61: 106-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Khanna N, Deol G, Poulter G, Ahuja A. Medialized, muscle-splitting approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion: technique and multicenter perioperative results. Spine 2016; 41 (08) (Suppl. 08) S90-S96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Khanna N, Deol G, Poulter G, Ahuja A. Medialized, muscle-splitting approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion: technique and multicenter perioperative results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41 (Suppl 8): S90-S96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Marengo N, Berjano P, Cofano F. et al. Cortical bone trajectory screws for circumferential arthrodesis in lumbar degenerative spine: clinical and radiological outcomes of 101 cases. Eur Spine J 2018; 27 (0123456789, Suppl 2): 213-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 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 randomized noninferiority trial. Spine J 2015; 15 (07) 1519-1526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 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 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 25 (05) 591-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hussain I, Virk MS, Link TW, Tsiouris AJ, Elowitz E. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with 3D-navigation guided cortical bone trajectory screws for L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis: 1-year clinical and radiographic outcomes. World Neurosurg 2018; 110: e504-e513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lee GW, Shin JH. Comparative study of two surgical techniques for proximal adjacent segment pathology after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws: fusion extension using conventional pedicle screw vs cortical bone trajectory-pedicle screw (cortical screw). World Neurosurg 2018; 117: e154-e161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Penner F, Marengo N, Ajello M. et al. Preoperative 3D CT planning for cortical bone trajectory screws: a retrospective radiological cohort study. World Neurosurg 2019; 126: e1468-e1474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kirkman MA, Ahmed M, Albert AF, Wilson MH, Nandi D, Sevdalis N. The use of simulation in neurosurgical education and training. A systematic review. J Neurosurg 2014; 121 (02) 228-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Marengo N, Matsukawa K, Monticelli M. et al. Cortical bone trajectory screw placement accuracy with a patient-matched 3-dimensional printed guide in lumbar spinal surgery: a clinical study. World Neurosurg 2019; 130: e98-e104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Matsukawa K, Kaito T, Abe Y. Accuracy of cortical bone trajectory screw placement using patient-specific template guide system. Neurosurg Rev 2019; (e-pub ahead of print) DOI: 10.1007/s10143-019-01140-1.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar