Simultaneous lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screws (SLIPS) with CT-guided navigation

Single-Position Robotic-Assisted Prone Lateral Fusion: Technical Description and Feasibility

Single-position lateral interbody fusion surgery has gained traction over the years because of reduced surgical time and improved operating theater workflow. With the introduction of robotics in spine surgery, surgeons can place pedicle screws with a high degree of accuracy and efficiency; moreover, the robot allows us to localize the disk space and perform endplate preparation accurately with minimal radiation. In this study, we discuss the potential synergistic benefits of integrating robotic-assisted spine surgery and singleposition prone lateral surgery. We share our technique and provide the operative nuances of using the Mazor X Stealth Edition system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). We highlighted the potential synergistic benefits of integrating both the prone lateral and robotic-assisted surgical techniques, including the challenges encountered. This approach is not meant to replace other techniques or be used in all patients. Instead, it adds to our arsenal for managing spine fusion.

The Utility and Appropriateness of Single-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-Arm-Based Navigation in the Novel Oblique Position

PURPOSE

Single-position surgery with patients in a lateral position, which involves inserting percutaneous pedicular screws (PPS) and lateral interbody fusion (LIF) to avoid changing the position, has been reported. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the utility and appropriateness of single-position LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation in the innovative oblique position.

METHODS

This study involved a retrospective analysis of 92 consecutive patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation. Thirty-five subjects demonstrated surgery with repositioning, as well as 24 in the lateral decubitus position, and 33 in the oblique during PPS, where the position was changed to the lateral decubitus position using bed rotation without resetting. We compared these three groups in terms of the surgery time, blood loss, and the accuracy of the screw placement.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly shorter in the single-position surgery, both in the lateral and oblique positions, compared to surgery in a dual position. The blood loss was significantly increased in the lateral position compared to the dual and oblique positions. The screw trajectory angle on the downside was significantly smaller in the lateral position, and the accuracy of the screw placement on the downside was significantly lower in the lateral position compared to the dual and oblique positions.

CONCLUSION

Single-position surgery could reduce the average surgery time by about 60 min. The present study indicated the oblique position during PPS insertion might make single-position surgery more useful to improve the accuracy of PPS on the downside, with less blood loss.

Spinal Navigation for Lateral Instrumentation of the Thoracolumbar Spine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Three-dimensional imaging-based navigation in spine surgery is mostly applied for pedicle screw placement. However, its potential reaches beyond. In this study, we analyzed the incorporation of spinal navigation for lateral instrumentation of the thoracolumbar spine in clinical routine at a high-volume spine center.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for lateral instrumentation were prospectively enrolled. A reference array was attached to the pelvis, and a computed tomography scan was acquired intraoperatively. A control computed tomography scan was routinely performed after final cage placement, replacing conventional 2-dimensional X-ray imaging.

RESULTS

145 cases were enrolled from April to October 2021 with a median of 1 (1-4) level being instrumented. Indications for surgery were trauma (35.9%), spinal infection (31.7%), primary and secondary tumors of the spine (17.2%), and degenerative spine disease (15.2%). The duration of surgery after the first scan was 98 ± 41 (20-342) minutes. In total, 190 cages were implanted (94 expandable cages for vertebral body replacement (49.5%) and 96 cages for interbody fusion [50.5%]). Navigation was successfully performed in 139 cases (95.9%). The intraoperative mental load was rated on a scale from 0 to 150 (maximal effort) by the surgeons, showing a moderate effort (median 30 [10-120]).

CONCLUSION

Three-dimensional imaging-based spinal navigation can easily be incorporated in clinical routine and serves as a reliable tool to achieve precise implant placement in lateral instrumentation of the spine. It helps to minimize radiation exposure to the surgical staff.

Modified facet joint fusion for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study of 135 consecutive patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of modified facet joint fusion (MFF) for the treatment of multilevel (three-level or more) lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 135 consecutive patients who underwent initial MFF for multilevel LSS were included. Clinical outcomes included fusion rate, change of visual analogue scale pain scores for low back pain (VAS-LBP) and leg pain (VAS-LP), Japanese Orthopedic Association scores (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and MacNab classification before and after MFF. The complications were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The fusion rates were 46.7% (63/135) at 6-month and 89.6% (121/135) at 1-year. The mean VAS-LBP, VAS-LP, and ODI significantly decreased from 5.2 ± 0.6, 5.7 ± 0.8 and 65 ± 7.9 to 1.58 ± 0.4, 0.58 ± 0.3 and 20.8 ± 5.8, respectively (all p < 0.001). The mean JOA markedly improved from 10.0 ± 1.3 to 26.1 ± 1.5 (p < 0.001). Excellent/good results of MacNab classification were achieved in 88.9% (120/135) of the patients. The overall rate of complications after MFF was 5.9%, including poor wound healing (2.2%), calf muscular venous thrombosis (0.74%), deep venous thrombosis (0.74%), superficial wound infection (1.48%), transient foot drop (0.74%). All the complications were transient and improved without prolonged hospital stay and sequelae.

CONCLUSION

MFF may be safe and efficient for multilevel LSS with high fusion rate and significant symptom relief, which is worthy of further study.

The Feasibility of 3D Intraoperative Navigation in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Perioperative Outcomes, Accuracy of Cage Placement and Radiation Exposure

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using 3D intraoperative navigation (ION), compared to conventional 2D fluoroscopy only.

METHODS

The perioperative outcomes and accuracy of cage placement were examined in all patients who underwent LLIF using ION (ION group) or fluoroscopy only (non-ION group) by a single surgeon. The radiation exposure was examined in patients who underwent stand-alone LLIF.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients with 154 levels (ION 49 patients with 79 levels/ non-ION 38 patients with 75 levels) were included. There were no significant differences in operative time (ION 143.5 min vs. non-ION 126.0 min, P = .406), time from induction end to surgery start (ION 31.0 min vs. non-ION 31.0 min, P = .761), estimated blood loss (ION 37.5 ml vs. non-ION 50.0 ml, P = .351), perioperative complications (ION 16.3% vs. non-ION 7.9%, P = .335) and length of stay (ION 50.6 hours vs. non-ION 41.7 hours, P = .841). No significant difference was found in the accuracy of cage placement (P = .279). ION did not significantly increase total radiation dose (ION 51.0 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .237) and tended to reduce radiation dose during the procedure (ION 32.2 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .932).

CONCLUSIONS

The perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in LLIF using ION were comparable to those using fluoroscopy only. The use of ION in LLIF was feasible, safe and accurate and may reduce radiation dose to the surgeon and surgical team.

The one-stop-shop approach: Navigating lumbar 360-degree instrumentation in a single position

Objective

Treatment strategies of patients suffering from pyogenic spondylodiscitis are a controverse topic. Percutaneous dorsal instrumentation followed by surgical debridement and fusion of the infectious vertebral disc spaces is a common approach for surgical treatment. Technical advances enable spinal navigation for dorsal and lateral instrumentation. This report investigates combined navigated dorsal and lateral instrumentation in a single surgery and positioning for lumbar spondylodiscitis in a pilot series.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with 1- or 2-level discitis were prospectively enrolled. To enable posterior navigated pedicle screw placement and lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) patients were positioned semi-prone in 45-degree fashion. For spinal referencing, a registration array was attached to the pelvic or spinal process. 3D scans were acquired intraoperatively for registration and implant control.

Results

27 patients suffering from 1- or 2-level spondylodiscitis with a median ASA of 3 (1–4) and a mean BMI of 27.9 ± 4.9 kg/m2 were included. Mean duration of surgery was 146 ± 49 min. Mean blood loss was 367 ± 307 ml. A median of 4 (4–8) pedicle screws were placed for dorsal percutaneous instrumentation with an intraoperative revision rate of 4.0%. LLIF was performed on 31 levels with an intraoperative cage revision rate of 9.7%.

Conclusions

Navigated lumbar dorsal and lateral instrumentation in a single operation and positioning is feasible and safe. It enables rapid 360-degree instrumentation in these critically ill patients and potentially reduces overall intraoperative radiation exposure for patient and staff. Compared to purely dorsal approaches it allows for optimal discectomy and fusion while overall incisions and wound size are minimized. Compared to prone LLIF procedures, semi-prone in 45-degree positioning allows for a steep learning curve due to minor changes of familiar anatomy.

Simultaneous Anterior Posterior Approach for Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Robotic Assistance: Technical Guidelines and Early Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) is traditionally performed in 2 stages: placing the interbody cage in the lateral decubitus position, then placing the percutaneous pedicle screw in the prone position. Performing interbody fusion and posterior fixation simultaneously could improve operative efficiency and clinical outcomes associated with longer operative times. We describe the operative steps and report clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with a simultaneous anterior and posterior approach (SAPA) for LLIF.

METHODS

Patients who underwent SAPA LLIF performed by a single surgeon over 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic data were analyzed, an operative guideline was created, and a learning curve was constructed using operative times.

RESULTS

SAPA LLIF was performed in 11 patients. Three patients experienced transient postoperative femoral nerve plexopathy with symptoms of ipsilateral hip flexion weakness and/or anterior thigh numbness; there were no other complications in the cohort. Radiographically, patients achieved significant increases in disc height (8.3 mm vs. 13.5 mm, P = 0.002) and foraminal height (20.2 mm vs. 25.3 mm, P = 0.0001). Patients showed significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (52 vs. 27.8, P = 0.002) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function (32.6 vs. 39, P = 0.048) and Pain Interference (64.9 vs. 59.6, P = 0.001) at 3 months. A downward trend in operative time was observed for 1-level SAPA LLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

SAPA LLIF is a safe approach for LLIF that results in favorable clinical outcomes. This technique can potentially improve operative efficiency further along the course of a surgeon's learning curve.

The Future of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery

Strong forces are pushing minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) to the forefront of spine care. Less-invasive surgical techniques have been enabled by a variety of technical advances. Despite the promise of MISS, however, several factors, including few training opportunities, perception of a steep learning curve, and high upfront costs, have limited the adoption of these techniques. The "6 T's" is a framework highlighting key factors that must be accounted for to ensure safe and effective MISS as techniques continually evolve. Further, technological advancement in endoscopy, robotics, and augmented/virtual reality is enhancing minimally invasive surgeries to make them even less invasive and safer for patients. The evolution of these new techniques and technologies is driving the future of MISS.

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: An Overview

Spinal surgery is undergoing a major transformation toward a minimally invasive paradigm. This shift is being driven by multiple factors, including the need to address spinal problems in an older and sicker population, as well as changes in patient preferences and reimbursement patterns. Increasingly, minimally invasive surgical techniques are being used in place of traditional open approaches due to significant advancements and implementation of intraoperative imaging and navigation technologies. However, in some patients, due to specific anatomic or pathologic factors, minimally invasive techniques are not always possible. Numerous algorithms have been described, and additional efforts are underway to better optimize patient selection for minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) procedures in order to achieve optimal outcomes. Numerous unique MISS approaches and techniques have been described, and several have become fundamental. Investigators are evaluating combinations of MISS techniques to further enhance the surgical workflow, patient safety, and efficiency.

Transitioning from lateral to the prone transpsoas approach: flatten the learning curve by knowing the nuances

Prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion is the newest frontier in surgical approach to the lumbar spine. Prone positioning facilitates segmental lordosis and facile posterior segmental fixation. However, even in experienced hands, transitioning from a lateral decubitus to prone position necessitates alterations to the traditional technique. In this video, the authors highlight the nuances of adopting the prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique and strategies to overcome them.

The video can be found here: https://stream.cadmore.media/r10.3171/2022.3.FOCVID2224

Setting for single position surgery: survey from expert spinal surgeons

PURPOSE

To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field.

METHODS

Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique.

CONCLUSION

A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

Single position lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recently, a single position lumbar fusion has been described in which both the anterior or lateral interbody fusion as well as posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation are performed in a single position.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to present and analyze the current evidence for single position lumbar fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Prospective or retrospective studies published in English that assessed outcomes of single position lumbar fusion surgery for patients with lumbar degenerative disease, spondylolisthesis, or radiculopathy were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, X-Ray exposure time, and postoperative outcomes including leg numbness or pain, leg weakness, lumbar lordosis, and segmental lordosis.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two separate meta-analyses were performed. The first compared single position (SP) surgery, both lateral and prone, to dual position or flipped (F) surgery. The second meta-analysis compared lateral single position (LSP) surgery to prone single position (PSP) surgery. Variables were included if (1) they were a mean with a reported standard deviation or (2) if they were a categorical variable. For calculating standard error of the mean, we used sample size, mean, and standard deviation. A random effects model was used. The heterogeneity among studies was assessed with a significance level of <0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were included for analysis. Three studies were prospective nonrandomized studies, while 18 were retrospective. Seven articles studied lateral single position only, 10 articles compared lateral single position to traditional repositioning surgery, three articles studied prone single position surgery, and one article compared prone single position surgery to traditional repositioning surgery. A detailed review is provided for all 21 articles. Seventeen studies were included for meta-analysis comparing the SP versus F groups, for a total of 942 patients in the SP group and 254 in the F group. Mean operative time was significantly less for the SP group compared with the F group (SP: 127.5±7.9, F: 188.7±15.5, p<.001). Average hospital length of stay was 2.87±0.3 days in the SP group and 6.63±0.6 days in the F group (p<.001). Complication rates did not significantly differ between groups. Pedicle screws placed in the lateral position had a higher rate of complication as compared with those placed in a prone position (L: 10.2±2%, P: 1.6±1%, p=.015). Seventeen studies were included in the LSP versus PSP analysis, including 13 in the LSP group and four in the PSP group, with a total of 785 patients in the LSP group and 85 patients in the PSP group. Operative time and X-Ray exposure was significantly less in the LSP compared with the PSP group (117.1±5.5 minutes vs. 166.9±21.9 minutes, p<.001; 43.7±15.5 minutes vs. 171.0±25.8 minutes, p<.001). Postoperative segmental lordosis was greater in the prone single position group (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Single position surgery decreases operative times and hospital length of stay, while maintaining similar complication rates and radiographic outcomes. PSP surgery was found to be longer in duration and have increased radiation exposure time compared with LSP, while increasing postoperative segmental lordosis.

Intraoperative computed tomography-guided navigation versus fluoroscopy for single-position surgery after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

There are no reports comparing fluoroscopy and intraoperative computed tomography (CT) navigation in lateral single-position surgery (SPS) in terms of surgical outcomes or implant-related complications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use radiological evaluation to compare the incidence of instrument-related complications in SPS of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using fluoroscopy with that using CT navigation techniques. We evaluated 99 patients who underwent lateral SPS. Twenty-six patients had a percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) inserted under fluoroscopy (SPS-C group), and 73 patients had a PPS inserted under intraoperative CT navigation (SPS-O group). Average operation time was shorter in the SPS-C group than in the SPS-O group (88.4 ± 24.4 min versus 111.9 ± 35.3 min, respectively, P = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative thigh symptoms or reoperation rate. The screw insertion angle of the SPS-C group was smaller than that of the SPS-O group, but there was no significant difference in the rate of screw misplacement (4.6% versus 3.4%, respectively, P = 0.556). By contrast, facet joint violation (FJV) was significantly lower in the SPS-O group than in the SPS-C group (8.4% versus 21.3%, respectively, P < 0.001). While fluoroscopy was superior to intraoperative CT navigation in terms of mean surgery time, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of PPS insertion between fluoroscopy and intraoperative CT navigation. The advantage of intraoperative CT navigation over fluoroscopy is that it significantly decreases the occurrence of FJV in SPS.

Accuracy of Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement after Single-Position versus Dual-Position Insertion for Lateral Interbody Fusion and Pedicle Screw Fixation Using Fluoroscopy

Study Design

Retrospective study.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement between prone and lateral decubitus positions during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and to evaluate the tendency of PPS positioning based on simple computed tomography measurements with patients in the lateral decubitus position.

Overview of Literature

There is insufficient information in the literature regarding the accuracy of inserting a PPS using fluoroscopy in patients in the lateral decubitus position.

Methods

We included 62 patients who underwent combined LLIF surgery and PPS fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal canal stenosis. We compared the patient demographics and the accuracy of fluoroscopy-guided PPS placement between two groups: patients who remained in the lateral decubitus position for the pedicle screw fixation (single-position surgery [SPS] group) and those who were turned to the prone position (dual-position surgery [DPS] group).

Results

There were 40 patients in the DPS group and 22 in the SPS group. Of the 292 PPSs, only 12 were misplaced. In other words, 280/292 screws (95.9%) were placed correctly in the pedicle's cortical shell (grade 0). PPS insertion did not cause neurological, vascular, or visceral injuries in either group. The breach rates for the DPS and SPS groups were 4.1% (grade 1, 5 screws; grade 2, 3 screws; grade 3, 0 screw) and 4.1% (grade 1, 2 screws; grade 2, 2 screws; grade 3, 0 screw), respectively. Although there were no statistically significant differences, the downside PPS had more screw malpositioning than the upside PPS.

Conclusions

We found that PPS insertion with the patient in the decubitus position under fluoroscopic guidance might be as safe and reliable a technique as PPS insertion in the prone position, with a misplacement rate similar to that previously published.

Safety Profile, Surgical Technique, and Early Clinical Results for Simultaneous Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in a Lateral Position

STUDY DESIGN

Description of surgical technique and retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a novel surgical technique for multilevel lumbar fusion and describe early clinical results.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patients with multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis and adult degenerative scoliosis often require multilevel interbody placement to achieve indirect decompression and lordosis. We describe a case series of patients treated with simultaneous lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5-S1.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients treated for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis with simultaneous ALIF and LLIF with at least 3-month follow-up. All patients received supplemental percutaneous bilateral pedicle screw placement as well. We measured on preoperative radiographs their lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, and L5-S1 lordosis. Intraoperative factors such as operative time, estimated blood loss, fluids provided, number of levels fused, and whether a trainee was present during the procedure were all recorded.

RESULTS

There were 15 patients included within our case series (69.5, 4 F). There were no reported intraoperative vascular or neurological complications in 15 cases. The operative time for the cases ranged from 2.7 to 8.4 hours (average=5.2±1.9 h). The average lordosis gained at L5-S1 was 8.6±3.0 degrees and the average lumbar lordosis gained was 14.7±6.4 degrees. The average PI-LL mismatch went from 22.4±13.3 degrees preoperative to 7.8±10.2 degrees postoperative. One patient had a postoperative complication of a sacral fracture requiring placement of a pelvic screw for a L2-pelvis fusion. There were 8 patients with 4+ levels of fusion. For this cohort of patients, the average lumbar lordosis gained was 16.0±7.5 degrees and the average PI-LL mismatch went from 24.7±16.3 degrees preoperative to 8.8±12.9 degrees postoperative. For the patients with 4+ levels of fusion, the average operative time was 5.9±1.8 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

We have described our early positive results with simultaneous LLIF/ALIF surgery for treatment of lumbar degenerative conditions.

Intraoperative image guidance for lateral position surgery

Recent advances in minimally invasive spine surgery techniques have precipitated the popularity of lateral position spine surgery, such as lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Lateral position surgery offers a unique, minimally invasive approach to the lumbar spine that allows for preservation of anterior and posterior spinal elements. Traditionally, surgeons have relied upon fluoroscopy for triangulation and implant placement. Over the last decade, intraoperative 3-dimensional navigation (ION) has risen to the forefront of innovation in LLIF and OLIF. This technology utilizes intra-operative advanced imaging, such as comminuted tomography (CT), to map the patient’s 3D anatomy and allows the surgeon to accurately visualize instruments and implants in spatial relationship to the patient’s anatomy in real time. ION has the potential to improve accuracy during instrumentation, decrease operating room times, lower radiation exposure to the surgeon and staff, and increase feasibility of single-position surgery during which the spine is instrumented both laterally and posteriorly while the patient remains in the lateral decubitus position. Despite the advantages of ION, the intra-operative radiation exposure risk to patients is controversial. Future directions include continued innovation in ultra low radiation imaging (ULRI) techniques and image enhancement technology and in uses of robot-assisted navigation in single-position spine surgery.

A New Technique that Combines Navigation-Assisted Lateral Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Placement of Pedicle Screws in the Lateral Decubitus Position with the Surgeon Using Wearable Smart Glasses: A Small Case Series and Technical Note

BACKGROUND

We describe a new technique that combines navigation-assisted extreme lateral interbody fusion (NALIF) and percutaneous placement of pedicle screws in the lateral decubitus position with the surgeon using wearable smart glasses.

METHODS

We explain our method for nonfluoroscopic NALIF and single-position (SP)- percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) surgery for patients with degenerative lumbar diseases using wearable smart glasses. The wearable smart glasses provide a semitransparent overlay of the navigation information onto the image seen through the lenses. This technique does not require fluoroscopy during lateral interbody fusion or PPS insertion. It is convenient because it does not require a Jamshidi needle or guidewire when inserting PPSs.

RESULTS

Using this method, the surgeon can glance at the 3-dimensional images on the wearable smart glasses while still viewing the operation field. A review of 24 cases yielded an average operation time of 89.5 ± 16.4 minutes and 66.7 ± 67.0 mL of blood loss, without any severe intra- or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonfluoroscopic NALIF and SP-PPS placement surgery is a safe and effective means for implanting cages and PPSs in this minimally invasive approach without compromising the results. Although further investigations are needed, the wearable smart glasses may be a useful surgical aid when performing NALIF and SP-PPS placement in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases.

Computer Navigation in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of the review is to discuss the common general applications of navigation in the context of minimally invasive spine surgery and assess its value in the published literature comparing against non-navigated or navigated techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is increasing utilization of computer navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery. There is synergy between navigation and minimally invasive technologies, such that one enhances or facilitates the other, thus leading to wider applications for both. Specifically, navigation has been shown to improve performance of percutaneous pedicle screw placement, vertebral augmentation, and minimally invasive fusion procedures. Overall, clinical studies have shown better accuracy and less radiation exposure with the use of navigation in spine surgery. The use of navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery enhances the accuracy of instrumentation and decreases radiation exposure. It is yet to be determined whether patient-reported outcomes will differ. Further research on its effect on clinical outcomes may further define the future impact of navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery.