Asian Spine J > Volume 16(1); 2022 > Article |
|
Author (yr) | Design of study | Level of evidence | No. of subjects | Method | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Santoni et al. [17] (2009) | Human cadaveric study | 4 | 14 Lumbar vertebral bodies (L1–L5) | Comparing CBT, PS screw fixation strength: pullout and toggle test | CBT screw fixation: uniaxial yield pullout load (30% higher than PS); pullout resistance, toggle testa) |
Perez-Orribo et al. [31] (2013) | Human cadaveric study | 4 | 28 Specimens | Comparing stability of CBT and PS | CBT screw fixation: stiffness, stabilitya) |
Matsukawa et al. [20] (2014) | In-vivo analysis of insertional torque | 2 | 48 Patients | Comparing CBT, PS screw fixation strength: insertional torque measurement | CBT screw fixation: insertional torque (1.7 times higher than PS) |
Matsukawa et al. [22] (2016) | Analysis of finite element model | 4 | 17 Patients (L4, L5 vertebral bodies) | Comparing CBT, PS screw fixation strength: measurement of axial pullout strength and applying flexion, extension, lateral bending, axial rotation force in spondylolytic vertebrae and normal vertebrae | CBT screw fixation strength in spondylolytic vertebrae: pullout strengtha); flexion, extension, lateral bending, axial rotation force (lower than PS); pullout, flexion, extension, lateral bending, axial rotation strength is lower than normal vertebrae |
Sansur et al. [24] (2016) | Human cadaveric study | 4 | 8 Specimens | Comparing CBT, PS screw fixation strength: fatigue testing (tensile load to failure pullout testing) | CBT screw fixation: increase in mean load at failure in lower vertebral segment |
Matsukawa et al. [23] (2016) | Analysis of finite element model | 2 | 20 Lumbar vertebral bodies |
Simulation and testing of CBT screw fixation Strength of single screw: axial pullout strength Paired screw construct: simulation of flexion, extension, lateral bending, axial rotation Calculation of bone-screw interface equivalent stress value |
Larger-diameter screws: increased pullout and vertebral fixation strength; decreased equivalent stress around screws Fixation force of CBT screws depends on screw size. Ideal screw size for CBT: diameter larger than 5.5 mm, length longer than 35 mm |
Li et al. [27] (2018) | Human cadaveric study | 4 | 14 (31 lumbar vertebral bodies) | Comparing CBT, PS screw fixation strength: one side CBT, the other side PS screw fixation on vertebral body; measurement of maximal insertional torque, pullout and cyclic fatigue test was done. | CBT screw fixation: higher maximum insertional torque, axial pullout strength; higher failure load for displacing screw than PS screw fixation |
Ninomiya et al. [28] (2016) | Clinical study | 4 | 21 Patients | Comparing CBT, PS screw fixation in degenerative spondylolisthesis: measurement of lumbar lordosis, percent slippage | CBT screw fixation: pre- and postoperative slippagea) |
Baluch et al. [32] (2014) | Human cadaveric study | 4 | 17 Vertebral bodies | Comparing CBT, PS screw fixation strength: one side CBT, the other side PS screw fixation on vertebral body; measurement of resistance to toggle testing (by increasing cycling craniocaudal toggling) | CBT screw fixation: more resistance to craniocaudal toggling |
Oshino et al. [25] (2015) | Animal cadaveric study | 5 | 20 Lumbar vertebral bodies | Comparing CBT, PS screw fixation: measurement of ROM by bending and rotational force | CBT screw fixation: mean ROMs, intervertebral stabilitya) |
Calvert et al. [33] (2015) | Human cadaveric study | 4 | 10 Specimens (L3, L4) | Comparing CBT, PS screw fixation: test of pullout strength to fail and then salvaged with screws of the opposite trajectory | CBT screw and PS fixation each obtain proper construct stiffness and pullout strength when used for revision at the same level. → Both CBT screw and PS fixation may be used as rescue option in compromised screw construct in lumbar spine. |
Matsukawa et al. [21] (2015) | Analysis of finite element model | 4 | 30 Lumbar vertebral bodies (L4) | Comparing CBT, PS screw fixation strength: measurement of axial pullout, multidirectional loading. And then simulating flexion, extension, lateral bending, axial rotation of screw-vertebra construct |
CBT screw fixation: stronger in pullout strength, stiffness in cephalocaudal and mediolateral loading; superior resistance to flexion and extension loading, inferior resistance to lateral bending and axial rotation in screw-vertebra construct PS screw fixation construct: superior to lateral bending and axial rotation |
Variable | Zhang et al. [67] (2019) | Wang et al. [49] (2019) | Hu et al. [65] (2019) |
---|---|---|---|
Fusion rate | NSD | NSD | NSD |
Back pain VAS | NSD | NSD | NSD |
Leg pain VAS | NSD | NSD | NSD |
JOA score | NSD | NSD | NSD |
JOA recovery rate | NM | C | NM |
Patients’ satisfaction | C | C | NM |
Incidence of reoperation | NM | NSD | NM |
Operation time | C | C | NM |
Intraoperative blood loss | C | C | C |
Length of hospital day | C | C | C |
Incidence of complications | Ca) | NM | NSDb) |
ASD | C | C | NM |
Oswestry Disability Index | C | C | NSD |
Incidence of superior facet joint violation | NM | C | NM |
Wound infection | NM | NSD | NM |
Screw malposition | NM | NSD | NM |
Incision length | NM | C | C |
NSD, no significant difference; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; JOA score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score; NM, not mentioned; C, superior outcomes in cortical bone trajectory; ASD, adjacent segment degeneration.
Author (year) | Design of study | Level of evidence | No. of patients | Mean age (yr) | Sex (male/female) | FU (mo) | Technique of fusion | Summary | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
CBT | PS | CBT | PS | CBT | PS | CBT | PS | |||||
Chin et al. [71] (2017) | Cohort | 4 | 30 | 30 | 48±3 | 62±3 | 18/12 | 15/15 | 24 | 24 | NM | Improvement in pain VAS, ODI in CBT group. Fusion rate at 2 years was similar between groups. |
|
||||||||||||
Chen et al. [72] (2016) | Cohort | 4 | 18 | 15 | 53.39±1.97 | 59.2±3.12 | 11/7 | 2/13 | 15 | 15 | NM | CBT group showed shorter length of hospital day and lesser postoperative pain VAS at 6–12 weeks. However, long-term postoperative pain VAS is higher in CBT group. |
|
||||||||||||
Hoffman et al. [73] (2019) | Cohort | 4 | 25 | 23 | 53.4 | 48.5 | 16 | 16 | 5.5 | 52.5 |
MIDLF (CBT) TLIF (PS) |
CBT group showed less BL and shorter length of hospital day. Both groups showed significant improvements in preoperative ODI, VAS scores. However, there was no significant difference between two groups in regard to OP time and amount of improvement in VAS pain score or ODI. |
|
||||||||||||
Hung et al. [44] (2016) | Cohort | 4 | 16 | 16 | 60.37±11.07 | 64.12±5.79 | 5/11 | 6/10 | 18 | 18 | PLIF | Clinical improvement (pain VAS, ODI, JOA score) was significant in both groups. However, there were no significant differences in OP time, BL, length of hospital stay, and recovery rate between the groups. The fat infiltration ratio was lower in the CBT group than PS group. |
|
||||||||||||
Lee et al. [57] (2018) | RCT | 2 | 22 | 31 | 51.2±11.9 | 51.7±10.4 | 31/4 | 33/4 | 24 | 24 | PLIF | Postoperative pain VAS, satisfaction rate (ODI), and surgical outcomes (lesser BL, shorter OP time and length of hospital stay, incision length) were better in CBT screw fixation group. |
|
||||||||||||
Lee et al. [58] (2015) | RCT | 2 | 38 | 39 | 51.3±12.4 | 51.9±11.7 | 33/5 | 34/5 | 12 | 12 | PLIF | CBT group showed better clinical outcome and pain improvement, functional recovery, although there was no significant difference. Also, CBT was related to less surgical morbidity and OP time and BL and shorter incision length. |
|
||||||||||||
Lee et al. [57] (2018) | Cohort | 4 | 35 | 37 | 32.7±10.1 | 64.2±9.3 | 9/13 | 12/19 | 12 | 12 | PLIF+PLF |
Satisfaction (ODI) at 1-month FU is greater in CBT group. However, there was no significant difference between the groups at the 1–2-year FUs. Clinical/radiologic outcomes and related complications showed no significant differences in both groups within 2 years postoperatively. |
|
||||||||||||
Liu et al. [61] (2019) | Cohort | 4 | 50 | 54 | 68±5 | 67±5 | 26/24 | 27/27 | 36 | 36 | PLIF | CBT group showed shorter OP time, less intraoperative BL, faster postoperative recovery, and lower complication rates. |
|
||||||||||||
Malcolm et al. [62] (2018) | Cohort | 4 | 45 | 35 | 63±9 | 57±11 | 20/25 | 7/28 | 12 | 12 | TLIF | CBT is associated less BL, fewer transfusions, reduced OP time, shorter length of stay, and no difference in complications. |
|
||||||||||||
Marengo et al. [63] (2018) | Cohort | 4 | 18 | 17 | 45±9.63 | 54±12.01 | 12/8 | 9/11 | 12 | 12 | PLIF | CBT is related less muscle damage. And clinical outcomes (pain VAS, ODI, Euroquality-5D, etc.) were better in CBT group. |
|
||||||||||||
Peng et al. [74] (2017) | Cohort | 4 | 51 | 46 | 62.8 | 61.9 | 23/28 | 21/25 | 24 | 24 | PLIF | CBT group showed significantly shorter OP time and length of hospital day, less BL, and lower postoperative serum creatine level. The complication rates were lower in the CBT group. However, there was no significant difference between two groups. |
|
||||||||||||
Sakaura et al. [47] (2016) | Cohort | 4 | 95 | 82 | 68.7±9.5 | 67±8.7 | 46/49 | 36/46 | 35 | 40 | PLIF | Improvement of clinical symptoms (JOA score) in CBT screw fixation was comparable with PS fixation. However, fusion rate was lower in the CBT group than in the PS group, although there were no significant differences between two groups. |
|
||||||||||||
Sakaura et al. [46] (2018) | Cohort | 4 | 22 | 20 | 70.7±7.3 | 68.3±9.6 | 4/18 | 6/14 | 39 | 35 | PLIF |
CBT showed less BL and OP time. Improvement of clinical symptoms was equal. Incidence of symptomatic ASD and fusion rate were lower in CBT group, although there was no significant difference between two groups. |
|
||||||||||||
Sakaura et al. [45] (2019) | Cohort | 4 | 102 | 77 | 67.5±9.2 | 66.4±10.5 | 35/67 | 28/49 | 36 | 36 | PLIF |
Early cephalad R-ASD rates were lower in CBT group than PS group. Narrowing of disc space, anterior slippage, and posterior slippage was significantly lower in the CBT group than PS group. Early cephalad S-ASD 1% in the CBT group and 4% in the PS group, although there was no significant difference between two groups. |
|
||||||||||||
Takenaka et al. [59] (2017) | Cohort | 4 | 42 | 77 | 65.7±8.1 | 65.7±11.4 | 18/24 | 31/46 | 17 | 35 | PLIF | CBT group revealed less BL, less intraoperative muscle damage (lower postoperative creatine kinase levels), less perioperative pain (less pain control medication), and lower numeric rating scale scores. |
|
||||||||||||
Xi et al. [75] (2016) | Cohort | 4 | 12 | 20 | 63.4±6.1 | 63.4±6.1 | NM | NM | 11 | 11 | PLIF+TLIF | Better satisfaction (JOA score) and less pain VAS were showed in CBT group. CBT screw fixation is related to less muscle damage. |
FU, follow-up; CBT, cortical bone trajectory; PS, Pedicle screw; NM, not mentioned; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; MIDLF, midline lumbar fusion; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; BL, blood loss; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; JOA score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score; OP, operation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; PLF, posterolateral fusion; ASD, adjacent segment degeneration; R-ASD, radiological-ASD; S-ASD, symptomatic-ASD.