Comparison of clinical outcomes after transforaminal interbody fusion using cortical bone trajectory versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE\nThe study aim was to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) and cortical bone trajectory (CBT) by a single surgeon.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThis was a retrospective matched-cohort study of 77 patients (mean age: 71.7 years, 56% female) who underwent TLIF using CBT or PPS. Thirty-nine consecutive patients in the CBT group and 38 patients in the PPS group matched for age, sex, and fused levels. All CBT screws were inserted by using a 3D patient-specific guide (MySpine MC, Medacta). Perioperative outcomes of operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), numerical rating scale (NRS) scores, and serum concentration of creatine kinase (CK) were compared between the two groups. At 1-year postoperatively, clinical outcomes and radiographic outcomes, including cage subsidence, screw loosening, and fusion rates, were compared between the two groups.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe NRS scores on postoperative days 3 and 7 and serum CK levels on postoperative days 1 and 3 were significantly lower in the CBT group than in the PPS group (all P < 0.005). There were no significant inter-group differences in operation time and EBL. At postoperative 1 year, there were no significant differences in cage subsidence, screw loosening, and fusion rates between the CBT group and PPS group. Clinical outcomes were equivalent between the two groups.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe CBT technique using 3D patient-specific guides resulted in lower perioperative pain and quicker recovery after surgery, which suggests that CBT is a less invasive procedure than PPS.