STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis on a national longitudinal database between 2007 and 2016.OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare complication rates, revision rates, and payment differences between navigated and conventional posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) procedures with instrumentation.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Stereotactic navigation techniques for spinal instrumentation have been widely demonstrated to improve screw placement accuracies and decrease perforation rates when compared to conventional fluoroscopic and free-hand techniques. However, the clinical utility of navigation for instrumented PLF remains controversial.METHODS: Patients who underwent elective laminectomy and instrumented PLF were stratified into "single level" and "3- to 6-level" cohorts. Navigation and conventional groups within each cohort were balanced using 1:1 propensity score matching, resulting in 1786 navigated and conventional patients in the single-level cohort and 2060 in the 3 to 6 level cohort. Outcomes were compared using bivariate analysis.RESULTS: For the single-level cohort, there were no significant differences in rates of complications, readmissions, revisions, and length of stay between the navigation and conventional groups. For the 3- to 6-level cohort, length of stay was significantly longer in the navigation group (P?
View details for DOI 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003130
View details for PubMedID 31634303