All CT scans were obtained with 0.6mm slices and allowed for coronal and sagittal reconstructions. Postoperative CT scans were primarily acquired for routine hardware evaluations (41.9%). CT scans were also ordered for persistent back or leg pain (28.0%), and the presence of postoperative complications such as new neurological deficit/symptoms, hematoma, or evaluation of surgical site infection (18.3%). The remaining scans (11.8%) were performed for non-neurosurgical indications including abdominal and pelvic pathology and pain. It is important to note that there were no significant differences in the indications for getting a CT scan between percutaneous and open cases. Also, there was no significant difference in facet violations when comparing across indications. The presence of facet violation on the postoperative CT at less than 3 months did not guide any acute management or clearly result in new acute symptoms. The grading criterion for facet joint violation was established prior to radiographic review (Table 3). A screw that was not in the facet and did not encroach upon the facet joint was labeled as a grade 0. If the screw was in the lateral facet but did not enter the articular facet, it was labeled as a grade 1 (Figure 1). Screws that penetrated the articular facet by ≤ 1 mm were assigned a grade 2 violation (Figure 2). Those screws travelling within the articular surface of the facet were given a grade 3 designation (Figure 3). All screws were graded by evaluating axial images together with the coronal and sagittal reconstructed ones. The top-level screws were evaluated by 2 different observers for evidence and grade of facet violation. The inter- and intra-observer Pearson r coefficients were 0.98 and 1.0, respectively. Both sides were assessed independently. Patient parameters such as age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) in addition to surgical factors including the level or segment of spine at the top of the construct, the distance from the skin surface to the L4 lamina, and the number of operative levels were recorded. Operative reports and radiographic images were used to confirm whether the screws were placed through an open or percutaneous technique. The primary outcomes for this study were the mean grade and incidence of facet violation due to open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Secondary outcomes included evaluating patient and surgery factors impacting primary outcomes. We also evaluated if facet violations impacted the development of clinically significant adjacent segment. The charts of patients with at least 3 years of follow up were reviewed to determine need for subsequent lumbar surgery due to adjacent level disease. We compared facet violation grade for patients requiring surgery for ASD compared to ones who remained asymptomatic.
Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol. The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link:
Access Free Full Text.
Babu R., Park J.G., Mehta A.I., Shan T., Grossi P.M., Brown C.R., Richardson W.J., Isaacs R.E., Bagley C.A., Kuchibhatla M, & Gottfried O.N. (2012). Comparison of Superior Level Facet Joint Violations During Open and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement. Neurosurgery, 71(5), 962-970.
Publication 2012
Abdominal Articular facet Body mass index Ct scanGenderHematoma Lumbar Neurological symptomsPainPatients Pedicle screw PelvicPostoperative complications Radiographic Reconstructions ScansSkin Spine Surgery Surgical site infection
Technique of pedicle screw placement (open vs. percutaneous)
dependent variables
Mean grade of facet violation
Incidence of facet violation
Need for subsequent lumbar surgery due to adjacent level disease
control variables
Slice thickness of CT scans (0.6mm)
Availability of coronal and sagittal reconstructions
Indications for obtaining postoperative CT scans (routine hardware evaluation, persistent back/leg pain, presence of postoperative complications)
Grading criterion for facet joint violation (as described in Table 3, Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3)
Inter- and intra-observer reliability for grading facet violation (Pearson r coefficients of 0.98 and 1.0, respectively)
Patient parameters (age, gender, BMI)
Surgical factors (level or segment of spine, distance from skin surface to L4 lamina, number of operative levels)
Confirmation of screw placement technique (open vs. percutaneous) through operative reports and radiographic images
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to
get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required