Cervical Spine Pedicle Screw Accuracy in Fluoroscopic, Navigated and Template Guided Systems-A Systematic Review.


Background: Pedicle screws provide excellent fixation for a wide range of indications. However, their adoption in the cervical spine has been slower than in the thoracic and lumbar spine, which is largely due to the smaller pedicle sizes and the proximity to the neurovascular structures in the neck. In recent years, technology has been developed to improve the accuracy and thereby the safety of cervical pedicle screw placement over traditional fluoroscopic techniques, including intraoperative 3D navigation, computer-assisted Systems and 3D template moulds. We have performed a systematic review into the accuracy rates of the various systems. Methods: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible papers; 9 valid papers involving 1427 screws were found. Results: fluoroscopic methods achieved an 80.6% accuracy and navigation methods produced 91.4% and 96.7% accuracy for templates. Conclusion: Navigation methods are significantly more accurate than fluoroscopy, they reduce radiation exposure to the surgical team, and improvements in technology are speeding up operating times. Significantly superior results for templates over fluoroscopy and navigation are complemented by reduced radiation exposure to patient and surgeon; however, the technology requires a more invasive approach, prolonged pre-operative planning and the development of an infrastructure to allow for their rapid production and delivery. We affirm the superiority of navigation over other methods for providing the most accurate and the safest cervical pedicle screw instrumentation, as it is more accurate than fluoroscopy and lacks the limitations of templates.





Published Version (Please cite this version)


Publication Info

Mahmoud, Arin, Kanatheepan Shanmuganathan, Brett Rocos, Fady Sedra, Alexander Montgomery and Syed Aftab (2021). Cervical Spine Pedicle Screw Accuracy in Fluoroscopic, Navigated and Template Guided Systems-A Systematic Review. Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 7(4). pp. 614–622. 10.3390/tomography7040052 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/29692.

This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.



Brett Rocos

Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery

I joined the team at Duke University Health from London, UK, where I was a Consultant Adult and Paediatric Spine Surgeon at Barts Health NHS Trust and Honorary Consultant Senior Lecturer at Queen Mary University of London. I completed my surgical training in in the South West of the UK and at the University of Toronto, and am fellowship trained in adult spine surgery, paediatric spine surgery, orthopaedic trauma surgery, research and healthcare management.

I am driven to support patients at every stage of their care, from clinic assessment, through surgery to discharge. Making sure that every person, adult, child, family or friend understands what’s wrong, helping them to choose the right treatment for them, and what the recovery will be like is an important priority.

My research activity focusses on finding effective new treatments for spinal disorders and bringing them to patients. Focusing on spinal deformity, I have led investigations in the UK, Canada and the USA, and I sit on the Global AO Knowledge Forum for Deformity and the Research Grants Committee at the Scoliosis Research Society. I have lectured in North America and Europe about the treatment of spine disorders for the Scoliosis Research Society, Global Spine Congress, AO Spine and Eurospine, and I have worked hard to produce research that improves the care for spine patients wherever they live. Lastly, I review for several orthopaedic journals and I am Deputy Editor of the Bone and Joint 360, a leading publication with a global readership.

Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.