Pedicle Screw Insertion: Is O-Arm-Based Navigation Superior to the Conventional Freehand Technique? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Although O-arm-based navigation (ON) has been considered a better choice than the conventional freehand (FH) technique for spine surgery, clinical evidence showing the accuracy of ON compared with the FH technique is limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion under ON compared with the FH technique. The Cochrane Library, Ovid, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and CNKI online databases were searched up to January 2020. Because only a few randomized controlled trials were anticipated, prospective and retrospective comparative studies were also evaluated to compare the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion between ON and FH. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 16.0. The primary outcomes extracted from articles that met the selection criteria were expressed as odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes with a 95% confidence interval. A χ² test and I² statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity. A total of 20 reviews were included in this meta-analysis without identifying additional studies from the references of published articles. These reviews included 1422 patients and 9982 screws. ON was used to insert 4797 pedicle screws and 5185 pedicle screws were inserted using the conventional FH technique with C-arm assistance. The meta-analysis showed that ON is significantly more accurate than FH pedicle screw insertion (odds ratio, 2.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.92-3.16; I² = 43.4%; P = 0.021). I² indicates that the studies have a moderate statistical heterogeneity; subgroup analysis decreased heterogeneity significantly. Compared with conventional methods, navigation provides greater accuracy in the placement of pedicle screws, accelerates the insertion, and reduces the complications associated with screw insertion. However, it may increase exposure time to radiation, which may harm the patient's or surgeon's health.