Feasibility and accuracy of thoracolumbar minimally invasive pedicle screw placement with augmented reality navigation technology

Spine

Volumn 43, Issue 14, 2018, Pages 1018-1023

  Elmi Terander, Adrian ^a   Nachabe, Rami ^b   Skulason, Halldor ^a   Pedersen, Kyrre ^a   Söderman, Michael ^a   Racadio, John ^b   Babic, Drazenko ^c   Gerdhem, Paul ^a   Edström, Erik ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^c CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

accuracy; augmented reality; hybrid operating room; integrated navigation; minimally invasive pedicle screw; occupational radiation dose

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CADAVER; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINE SURGERY; THORACOLUMBAR SPINE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEASIBILITY STUDY; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; NEURONAVIGATION; PEDICLE SCREW; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; SURGERY; THORACIC VERTEBRA;

CADAVER; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; NEURONAVIGATION; PEDICLE SCREWS; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; THORACIC VERTEBRAE;

EID: 85050191984     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002502     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Phillips FM, Cheng I, Rampersaud YR, et al. Breaking through the ''glass ceiling'' of minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41: S39-43.
2. Varzan M, Gempt J, Meyer B, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2017; 159: 1137-46.
3. Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, et al. Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 24: 416-27.
4. Lu VM, Kerezoudis P, Gilder HE, et al. Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017; 42: E177-85.
5. Bourgeois AC, Faulkner AR, Bradley YC, et al. Improved accuracy of minimally invasive transpedicular screw placement in the lumbar spine with 3-dimensional stereotactic image guidance: a comparative meta-analysis. J SpinalDisord Tech 2015; 28: 324-9.
6. Nevzati E, Fandino J, Schatlo B, et al. Validation and accuracy of intraoperative CT scan using the Philips AlluraXper FD20 angiography suite for assessment of spinal instrumentation. Br J Neurosurg 2017; 10: 1-6.
7. Elmi-Terander A, Skulason H, Soderman M, et al. Surgical navigation technology based on augmented reality and integrated 3D intraoperative imaging: a spine cadaveric feasibility and accuracy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41: E1303-11.
8. Kleck CJ, Cullilmore I, LaFleur M, et al. A new 3-dimensional method for measuring precision in surgical navigation and methods to optimize navigation accuracy. Eur Spine J 2016; 25: 1764-74.
9. Guha D, Jakubovic R, Gupta S, et al. Spinal intraoperative threedimensional navigation: correlation between clinical and absolute engineering accuracy. Spine J 2017; 17: 489-98.
10. Mathew JE, Mok K, Goulet B. Pedicle violation and navigational errors in pedicle screw insertion using the intraoperative O-arm: a preliminary report. Int J Spine Surg 2013; 7: e88-94.
11. Miller CA, Ledonio CG, Hunt MA, et al. Reliability of the planned pedicle screw trajectory versus the actual pedicle screw trajectory using intra-operative 3D CT and image guidance. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 38.
12. Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990; 15: 11-4.
13. Dea N, Fisher CG, Batke J, et al. Economic evaluation comparing intraoperative cone beam CT-based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for the placement of spinal pedicle screws: a patientlevel data cost-effectiveness analysis. Spine J 2016; 16: 23-31.
14. Lian X, Navarro-Ramirez R, Berlin C, et al. Total 3D Airo1 navigation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016: 5027340.
15. Yang BP, Wahl MM, Idler CS. Percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placement aided by computer-assisted fluoroscopy-based navigation: perioperative results of a prospective, comparative, multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37: 2055-60.
16. Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Doornik A, et al. Analysis of the morphometric characteristics of the thoracic and lumbar pedicles. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1987; 12: 160-6.
17. Scheufler KM, Franke J, Eckardt A, et al. Accuracy of imageguided pedicle screw placement using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation with automated referencing. Part II: thoracolumbar spine. Neurosurgery 2011; 69: 1307-16.
18. Yu E, Khan SN. Does less invasive spine surgery result in increased radiation exposure? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 1738-48.
19. Bronsard N, Boli T, Challali M, et al. Comparison between percutaneous and traditional fixation of lumbar spine fracture: intraoperative radiation exposure levels and outcomes. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99: 162-8.
20. Schizas C, Michel J, Kosmopoulos V, et al. Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw insertion in percutaneous posterior transpedicular stabilization. Eur Spine J 2007; 16: 613-7.
21. Kim MC, Chung HT, Cho JL, et al. Factors affecting the accurate placement of percutaneous pedicle screws during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2011; 20: 1635-43.