Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of 2D and 3D navigation for iliosacral screw fixation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Image guidance is essential in some orthopedic surgical procedures, especially iliosacral screw fixation. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best image guidance technique. An ex-vivo study was performed to compare conventional, 2-dimensional (2D), and 3D imaging techniques and determine the optimal image guidance technique for pelvic surgery.

Methods

Plastic (n = 9) and donated cadaver pelvises (n = 8) were evaluated in the laboratory. The pelvises were positioned on radiolucent operation tables in a prone position. Transiliosacral screws were inserted without or with 2D- and 3D-navigational support. A digital mobile X-ray unit with flat-panel fluoroscopy and navigation software was used to measure precision, radiation exposure, and time requirements.

Results

2D-navigation resulted in 40% incorrect screw positioning for the cadavers, 6% for the plastic phantoms, and 21% overall. The highest accuracy was accomplished with 3D-navigation (plastic: 100%; cadavers: 83%; p < 0.05). The dose-area product showed that both 2D- and 3D-navigation required increased exposure compared to the conventional technique (p < 0.01). For both plastic and cadaver specimens, navigated techniques required significantly longer times for screw insertion than the conventional technique (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

3D image guidance for transiliosacral screw fixation enabled more accurate screw placement in S1 and S2 vertebrae. However, radiation exposure in 3D-navigation was excessive; thus, we recommend avoiding 3D-navigation in young patients. A primary advantage of 3D-navigation was that the operating team could leave the room during the scan; thus, it reduced their radiation exposure. Moreover, the time required for screw insertion with 3D-navigation was similar to that required in the conventional technique; thus, 3D-navigation is recommended for older patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Krettek C, Gebhard F, Hufner T (2003) The current status of navigation systems. Unfallchirurg 106(11): 897–898

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schnake KJ, Konig B, Berth U, Schroeder RJ, Kandziora F, Stockle U, Raschke M, Haas NP (2004) Accuracy of CT-based navigation of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine compared with conventional technique. Unfallchirurg 107(2): 104–112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schlenzka D, Laine T, Lund T (2000) Computer-assisted spine surgery: principles, technique, results and perspectives. Orthopade 29(7): 658–669

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schlenzka D, Laine T, Lund T (2000) Computer-assisted spine surgery. Eur Spine J 9(Suppl 1): S57–S64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Reichle E, Sellenschloh K, Morlock M, Eggers C (2002) Placement of pedicle screws using different navigation systems. A laboratory trial with 12 spinal preparations. Orthopade 31(4): 368–371

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Briem D, Windolf J, Rueger JM (2007) Percutaneous, 2d-fluoroscopic navigated iliosacral screw placement in the supine position: technique, possibilities, and limits. Unfallchirurg 110(5): 393–401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stockle U, Schaser K, Konig B (2007) Image guidance in pelvic and acetabular surgery-expectations, success and limitations. Injury 38(4): 450–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Briem D, Rueger JM, Begemann PG, Halata Z, Bock T, Linhart W, Windolf J (2006) Computer-assisted screw placement into the posterior pelvic ring: assessment of different navigated procedures in a cadaver trial. Unfallchirurg 109(8): 640–646

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zwingmann J, Konrad G, Kotter E, Sudkamp NP, Oberst M (2009) Computer-navigated iliosacral screw insertion reduces malposition rate and radiation exposure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(7): 1833–1838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Citak M, Hufner T, Geerling J, Kfuri M Jr., Gansslen A, Look V, Kendoff D, Krettek C (2006) Navigated percutaneous pelvic sacroiliac screw fixation: Experimental comparison of accuracy between fluoroscopy and iso-c3d navigation. Comput Aided Surg 11(4): 209–213

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith HE, Welsch MD, Sasso RC, Vaccaro AR (2008) Comparison of radiation exposure in lumbar pedicle screw placement with fluoroscopy vs computer-assisted image guidance with intraoperative three-dimensional imaging. J Spinal Cord Med 31(5): 532–537

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kalender WA, Kyriakou Y (2007) Flat-detector computed tomography (fd-ct). Eur Radiol 17(11): 2767–2779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schaefer-Prokop C, Uffmann M, Sailer J, Kabalan N, Herold C, Prokop M (2003) Digital thorax radiography: flat-panel detector or storage phosphor plates. Radiologe 43(5): 351–361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kyriakou Y, Kalender WA (2007) X-ray scatter data for flat-panel detector CT. Phys Med 23(1): 3–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Richter G, Engelhorn T, Struffert T, Doelken M, Ganslandt O, Hornegger J, Kalender WA, Doerfler A (2007) Flat panel detector angiographic CT for stent-assisted coil embolization of broad-based cerebral aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28(10): 1902–1908

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Grampp S (2002) Flat panel detector systems in skeletal radiology. Wien Med Wochenschr Suppl (113): 12–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Imhof H, Dirisamer A, Fischer H, Grampp S, Heiner L, Kaderk M, Krestan C, Kainberger F (2002) Change in process management by implementing ris, pacs and flat-panel detectors. Radiologe 42(5): 344–350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Daly MJ, Siewerdsen JH, Moseley DJ, Jaffray DA, Irish JC (2006) Intraoperative cone-beam CT for guidance of head and neck surgery: assessment of dose and image quality using a c-arm prototype. Med Phys 33(10): 3767–3780

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zwienen CM, van Bosch EW, van den Snijders CJ, Kleinrensink GJ, van Vugt AB (2004) Biomechanical comparison of sacroiliac screw techniques for unstable pelvic ring fractures. J Orthop Trauma 18(9): 589–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Matta JM, Tornetta P III (1996) Internal fixation of unstable pelvic ring injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 329: 129–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Konrad G, Zwingmann J, Kotter E, Sudkamp N, Oberst M (2009) Variability of the screw position after 3d-navigated sacroiliac screw fixation : influence of the surgeon’s experience with the navigation technique. Unfallchirurg 113: 29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hufner T, Kendoff D, Citak M, Geerling J, Krettek C (2006) Precision in orthopaedic computer navigation. Orthopade 35(10): 1043–1055

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Arand M, Kinzl L, Gebhard F (2002) Sources of error and risks in ct based navigation. Orthopade 31(4): 378–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tosounidis G et al (2007) Percutaneous sacroiliac lag screw fixation of the posterior pelvic ring. Increasing safety by standardization of visualization and insertion technique. Unfallchirurg 110(8): 669–674

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Routt ML Jr, Nork SE, Mills WJ (2000) Percutaneous fixation of pelvic ring disruptions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 375: 15–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stockle U, Krettek C, Pohlemann T, Messmer P (2004) Clinical applications—pelvis. Injury 35(Suppl 1): S-A46–S-A56

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hufner T, Geerling J, Gansslen A, Kendoff D, Citak C, Grutzner P, Krettek C (2004) Computer-assisted surgery for pelvic injuries. Chirurg 75(10): 961–966

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma, Reconstructive and Plastic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Daniel Behrendt, Maria Mütze, Christoph Josten & Jörg Böhme

  2. Institute of Anatomy, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Hanno Steinke

  3. BrainLAB AG, Feldkirchen, Germany

    Martin Koestler

Authors
  1. Daniel Behrendt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Mütze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hanno Steinke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Koestler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christoph Josten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jörg Böhme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Behrendt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Behrendt, D., Mütze, M., Steinke, H. et al. Evaluation of 2D and 3D navigation for iliosacral screw fixation. Int J CARS 7, 249–255 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-011-0652-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-011-0652-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation