Expert consensus on the clinical application of cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws: results from a modified Delphi study.

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Asian Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-22 DOI:10.31616/asj.2024.0124
Yiqi Zhang, Jingwei Liu, Honghao Yang, Qiang Wang, Yong Hai, Yuzeng Liu
{"title":"Expert consensus on the clinical application of cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws: results from a modified Delphi study.","authors":"Yiqi Zhang, Jingwei Liu, Honghao Yang, Qiang Wang, Yong Hai, Yuzeng Liu","doi":"10.31616/asj.2024.0124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A modified Delphi study.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study sought to establish expert consensus on the use of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) for lumbar pedicle screws.</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>The CBT technique is widely used in the treatment of various degenerative lumbar diseases because it reduces surgical time, soft tissue exposure, and blood loss; improves biomechanical stability; and allows for faster patient recovery. However, as an emerging surgical technique, CBT remains controversial in terms of preoperative evaluation methods, key surgical techniques, complication prevention and treatment, postoperative follow-up, and other aspects, resulting in unclear indications and contraindications for some doctors and posing great challenges to the steady promotion of this technique.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From May 2021 to August 2021, panelists were chosen to collect expert feedback using the modified Delphi method, and 74 spine surgeons from across China agreed to participate. Four rounds were conducted: one in-person meeting and three subsequent survey rounds. Each question received at least 70.0% agreement, indicating a consensus. The grade A, B, and C recommendation were defined as having ≥90.0%, 80.0%-89.9%, and 70.0%-79.9% agreement on each question, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The panelist group consisted of 74 experts, and 72, 70, and 69 questionnaires were collected in three rounds, respectively. In total, 24 questions with 59 options reached consensus after the Delphi rounds, including indications (adjacent vertebral diseases after lumbar internal fixation) and contraindications (previous surgery or bone destructive diseases lead to the destruction or absence of bone in the lamina or isthmus); advantages (intraoperative traction of paravertebral soft tissue is small) and disadvantages (not three-column fixation.); preoperative evaluation; complications; and postoperative follow-up evaluation, of CBT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The modified Delphi method achieved expert consensus on the clinical use of CBT for lumbar pedicle screws. This consensus document establishes clear guidelines for indications, contraindications, surgical techniques, and postoperative management, thereby enhancing clinical decision-making and promoting the safe and effective use of CBT. While the initial study focused on Chinese surgeons, future research will seek to validate and expand these findings from a broader international perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"690-698"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11538825/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: A modified Delphi study.

Purpose: This study sought to establish expert consensus on the use of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) for lumbar pedicle screws.

Overview of literature: The CBT technique is widely used in the treatment of various degenerative lumbar diseases because it reduces surgical time, soft tissue exposure, and blood loss; improves biomechanical stability; and allows for faster patient recovery. However, as an emerging surgical technique, CBT remains controversial in terms of preoperative evaluation methods, key surgical techniques, complication prevention and treatment, postoperative follow-up, and other aspects, resulting in unclear indications and contraindications for some doctors and posing great challenges to the steady promotion of this technique.

Methods: From May 2021 to August 2021, panelists were chosen to collect expert feedback using the modified Delphi method, and 74 spine surgeons from across China agreed to participate. Four rounds were conducted: one in-person meeting and three subsequent survey rounds. Each question received at least 70.0% agreement, indicating a consensus. The grade A, B, and C recommendation were defined as having ≥90.0%, 80.0%-89.9%, and 70.0%-79.9% agreement on each question, respectively.

Results: The panelist group consisted of 74 experts, and 72, 70, and 69 questionnaires were collected in three rounds, respectively. In total, 24 questions with 59 options reached consensus after the Delphi rounds, including indications (adjacent vertebral diseases after lumbar internal fixation) and contraindications (previous surgery or bone destructive diseases lead to the destruction or absence of bone in the lamina or isthmus); advantages (intraoperative traction of paravertebral soft tissue is small) and disadvantages (not three-column fixation.); preoperative evaluation; complications; and postoperative follow-up evaluation, of CBT.

Conclusions: The modified Delphi method achieved expert consensus on the clinical use of CBT for lumbar pedicle screws. This consensus document establishes clear guidelines for indications, contraindications, surgical techniques, and postoperative management, thereby enhancing clinical decision-making and promoting the safe and effective use of CBT. While the initial study focused on Chinese surgeons, future research will seek to validate and expand these findings from a broader international perspective.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于腰椎椎弓根螺钉皮质骨轨迹临床应用的专家共识:改良德尔菲研究的结果。
研究设计:目的:本研究旨在就腰椎椎弓根螺钉使用皮质骨轨迹(CBT)达成专家共识:CBT 技术被广泛应用于各种腰椎退行性疾病的治疗,因为它可以减少手术时间、软组织暴露和失血量,提高生物力学稳定性,并使患者更快康复。然而,CBT作为一种新兴的手术技术,在术前评估方法、手术关键技术、并发症防治、术后随访等方面仍存在争议,导致部分医生对其适应症和禁忌症不明确,给该技术的稳步推广带来了巨大挑战:2021年5月至2021年8月,采用改良德尔菲法收集专家反馈意见,来自全国的74名脊柱外科医生同意参与。共进行了四轮讨论:一轮面对面会议和三轮后续调查。每个问题都获得了至少 70.0% 的同意,表明达成了共识。A、B和C级推荐的定义分别为每个问题的同意率≥90.0%、80.0%-89.9%和70.0%-79.9%:专家小组由 74 名专家组成,分三轮分别回收了 72 份、70 份和 69 份问卷。经过德尔菲轮讨论,共有 24 个问题 59 个选项达成共识,包括 CBT 的适应症(腰椎内固定术后邻近椎体疾病)和禁忌症(既往手术或骨质破坏性疾病导致椎板或椎峡部骨质破坏或缺失);优点(术中椎旁软组织牵引小)和缺点(非三柱固定);术前评估;并发症;术后随访评估:改良德尔菲法就腰椎椎弓根螺钉 CBT 的临床应用达成了专家共识。这份共识文件为适应症、禁忌症、手术技巧和术后管理制定了明确的指导原则,从而提高了临床决策水平,促进了 CBT 的安全有效使用。虽然最初的研究主要针对中国外科医生,但未来的研究将从更广泛的国际视角来验证和扩展这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Spine Journal
Asian Spine Journal ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
108
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Normative values of non-radiological surface measurement of the lumbar lordosis curvature in the standing position and its association with age, sex, and body mass index: a cross-sectional study of 2,500 healthy individuals from Iran. A magnetic resonance imaging-based morphometric analysis of bilateral L1-L5 oblique lumbar interbody fusion corridor: feasibility of safe surgical approach and influencing factors. A novel pedicle screw design to maximize screw-bone interface strength using finite element analysis and design of experiment techniques. Factors related to surgical site infection in spinal instrumentation surgery: a retrospective study in Japan. Perioperative complications in patients aged ≥85 years undergoing spinal surgery: a retrospective comparative study of pre-old and old patients in Japan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1