Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement Methods in Pediatrics and Adolescents Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN\nSystematic review and meta-analysis.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nVarious methods of pedicle screw (PS) placement in spinal fusion surgery existed, which can be grouped into conventional freehand (FH), modified freehand (MF), and image-guided methods (including fluoroscopy-based navigation (FL), computed tomography-based navigation (CT-nav), robot-assisted (RA), and ultrasound-guided (UG)). However, the literature showed mixed findings regarding their accuracy and complications. This review aimed to discover which method of PS placement has the highest accuracy and lowest complication rate in pediatric and adolescent spinal fusion surgery.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA comprehensive search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (OVID), CENTRAL, and Web of Science was conducted until May 2020 by 2 independent reviewers, followed by bias assessment with ROB 2 and ROBINS-I tools and quantification with meta-analysis. Overall evidence quality was determined with GRADE tool.\n\n\nRESULTS\nFour RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs/CCTs comprising 3,830 PS placed in 291 patients (4-22 years old) were analyzed. The lowest accuracy was found in FH (78.35%) while the highest accuracy was found in MF (95.86%). MF was more accurate than FH (OR 3.34 (95% CI, 2.33-4.79), P < .00\u2009001, I2 = 0%). Three-dimensional printed drill template (as part of MF) was more accurate than FH (OR 3.10 (95% CI, 1.98-4.86), P < .00\u2009001, I2 = 14%). Overall, complications occurred in 5.84% of the patients with 0.34% revision rate. Complication events in MF was lower compared to FH (OR 0.47 (95% CI, 0.10-2.15), P = .33, I2 = 0%).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nMeta-analysis shows that MF is more accurate than FH in pediatric and adolescent requiring PS placement for spinal fusion surgery.