The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw (PSS) placement in the lateral decubitus position has seldom been reported. This study aimed to retrospectively compare the accuracy of PPS placement with 3-dimensional (3D) fluoroscopy-based navigation in 2 cohorts of patients who underwent surgery in the lateral decubitus or prone positions at our single institute. A total of 265 consecutive patients underwent spinal surgery with PPS from T1 (thoracic 1) to S (sacrum) under the 3D fluoroscopy-based navigation system at our institute. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on their intraoperative patient positioning: lateral decubitus (Group L) or prone (Group P). A total of 1816 PPSs were placed from T1 to S, and 76 (4.18%) PPSs were assessed as deviated PPS. Twenty-one of 453 (4.64%) PPSs in Group L deviation and 55 of 1363 (4.04%) PPSs in Group P had deviated PPS, but with not significant difference ( P = .580). In Group L, although the PPS deviation rate was not significantly different between the upside and downside PPS, the downside PPS significantly deviated toward the lateral side compared with the upside PPS. The safety and efficacy of PPS insertion in the lateral decubitus position were similar to those in the conventional prone position.

No abstract

Anteroposterior (AP) alignment assessment for nondisplaced femoral neck fractures is important for determining the treatment strategy and predicting postoperative outcomes. AP alignment is generally measured using the Garden alignment index (GAI). However, its reliability remains unknown. We compared the reliability of GAI and a new AP alignment measurement (valgus tilt measurement [VTM]) using preoperative AP radiographs of nondisplaced femoral neck fractures. The study was designed as an intra- and inter-rater reliability analysis. The raters were four trauma surgeons who assessed 50 images twice. The main outcome was the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). To calculate intra- and inter-rater reliability, we used a mixed-effects model considering rater, patient, and time. The overall ICC (95% CI) of GAI and VTM for intra-rater reliability was 0.92 (0.89–0.94) and 0.86 (0.82–0.89), respectively. The overall ICC of GAI and VTM for inter-rater reliability was 0.92 (0.89–0.95), and 0.85 (0.81–0.88), respectively. The intra- and inter-rater reliability of GAI was higher in patients aged <80 years than in patients aged ≥80 years. Our results showed that GAI is a more reliable measurement method than VTM, although both are reliable. Variations in patient age should be considered in GAI measurements.