• Jin Peng Du, Yong Fan, Qi Ning Wu, Dai Hua Wang, Jing Zhang, and Ding Jun Hao.
• Medical College, Yan'an University, Yan'an City, Shanxi Province, China.
• World Neurosurg. 2018 Jan 1; 109: 24-30.

BackgroundMany retrospective studies of pedicle screw placement have revealed that intraoperative navigation systems provide higher accuracy rates and safety than do free-hand techniques. The accuracy of various image-guided navigation systems has been studied; however, differences have not been well defined due to the lack of adequate evidence-based comparative studies.ObjectiveA meta-analysis was conducted to focus on the variation in pedicle screw insertion among 3 navigation systems: a 3-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation system (3D FluoroNav), a 2-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation system (2D FluoroNav), and a conventional computed tomography navigation system (CT Nav).MethodsWe screened for comparative studies on different pedicle screw insertion navigation systems published through January 2017 using the Cochrane Library, Ovid, Web of Science, PubMed, and EMBASE databases.ResultsFrom 125 papers that were identified, 10 articles were finally chosen. The present comparative study included 8 retrospective clinical studies, 1 prospective clinical trial, and 1 randomized controlled cadaveric study. The prevalence rate of pedicle violation in the 3D FluoroNav group was significantly lower than the rates of the 2D FluoroNav group (relative risk [RR] 95%, confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-0.61, P < 0.01) and the CT Nav group (RR 95%, CI: 0.42-0.90, P = 0.01), and the rate of the CT Nav group was significantly lower than that of the 2D FluoroNav group (RR 95%, CI: 0.29-0.81, P < 0.01).ConclusionSignificant differences exist among CT Nav, 3D FluoroNav, and 2D FluoroNav. Our review suggests that 3D FluoroNav may be superior to the other 2 methods in reducing pedicle violation and that clinicians should consider 3D FluoroNav as a better choice.Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.

21 keywords...

hide…