1
|
Wilson JP, Fontenot L, Stewart C, Kumbhare D, Guthikonda B, Hoang S. Image-Guided Navigation in Spine Surgery: From Historical Developments to Future Perspectives. J Clin Med 2024; 13:2036. [PMID: 38610801 PMCID: PMC11012660 DOI: 10.3390/jcm13072036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2023] [Revised: 03/08/2024] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Intraoperative navigation is critical during spine surgery to ensure accurate instrumentation placement. From the early era of fluoroscopy to the current advancement in robotics, spinal navigation has continued to evolve. By understanding the variations in system protocols and their respective usage in the operating room, the surgeon can use and maximize the potential of various image guidance options more effectively. At the same time, maintaining navigation accuracy throughout the procedure is of the utmost importance, which can be confirmed intraoperatively by using an internal fiducial marker, as demonstrated herein. This technology can reduce the need for revision surgeries, minimize postoperative complications, and enhance the overall efficiency of operating rooms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Stanley Hoang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport, Shreveport, LA 71103, USA; (J.P.W.J.); (L.F.); (C.S.); (D.K.); (B.G.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Adida S, Legarreta AD, Hudson JS, McCarthy D, Andrews E, Shanahan R, Taori S, Lavadi RS, Buell TJ, Hamilton DK, Agarwal N, Gerszten PC. Machine Learning in Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review. Neurosurgery 2024; 94:53-64. [PMID: 37930259 DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2023] [Accepted: 07/06/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML) can offer revolutionary advances in their application to the field of spine surgery. Within the past 5 years, novel applications of ML have assisted in surgical decision-making, intraoperative imaging and navigation, and optimization of clinical outcomes. ML has the capacity to address many different clinical needs and improve diagnostic and surgical techniques. This review will discuss current applications of ML in the context of spine surgery by breaking down its implementation preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively. Ethical considerations to ML and challenges in ML implementation must be addressed to maximally benefit patients, spine surgeons, and the healthcare system. Areas for future research in augmented reality and mixed reality, along with limitations in generalizability and bias, will also be highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel Adida
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - Andrew D Legarreta
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - Joseph S Hudson
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - David McCarthy
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - Edward Andrews
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - Regan Shanahan
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - Suchet Taori
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - Raj Swaroop Lavadi
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - Thomas J Buell
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - D Kojo Hamilton
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - Nitin Agarwal
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| | - Peter C Gerszten
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zawar A, Chhabra HS, Mundra A, Sharma S, Kalidindi KKV. Robotics and navigation in spine surgery: A narrative review. J Orthop 2023; 44:36-46. [PMID: 37664556 PMCID: PMC10470401 DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.08.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2023] [Revised: 08/12/2023] [Accepted: 08/15/2023] [Indexed: 09/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction In recent decades, there has been a rising trend of spinal surgical interventional techniques, especially Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (MIS), to improve the quality of life in an effective and safe manner. However, MIS techniques tend to be difficult to adapt and are associated with an increased risk of radiation exposure. This led to the development of 'computer-assisted surgery' in 1983, which integrated CT images into spinal procedures evolving into the present day robotic-assisted spine surgery. The authors aim to review the development of spine surgeries and provide an overview of the benefits offered. It includes all the comparative studies available to date. Methods The manuscript has been prepared as per "SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles". The authors searched Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus using the terms "(((((Robotics) OR (Navigation)) OR (computer assisted)) OR (3D navigation)) OR (Freehand)) OR (O-Arm)) AND (spine surgery)" and 68 articles were included for analysis excluding review articles, meta-analyses, or systematic literature. Results The authors noted that 49 out of 68 studies showed increased precision of pedicle screw insertion, 10 out of 19 studies show decreased radiation exposure, 13 studies noted decreased operative time, 4 out of 8 studies showed reduced hospital stay and significant reduction in rates of infections, neurological deficits, the need for revision surgeries, and rates of radiological ASD, with computer-assisted techniques. Conclusion Computer-assisted surgeries have better accuracy of pedicle screw insertion, decreased blood loss and operative time, reduced radiation exposure, improved functional outcomes, and lesser complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amogh Zawar
- Rajiv Gandhi Medical College and CSMH, Thane, Maharashtra. 400605, India
| | | | - Anuj Mundra
- Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, A4 Block, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, 110063, India
| | - Sachin Sharma
- Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, A4 Block, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, 110063, India
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Xu D, Ma X, Xie L, Zhou C, Kong B. Surgical Precision and Efficiency of a Novel Electromagnetic System Compared to a Robot-Assisted System in Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement of Endo-LIF. Global Spine J 2023; 13:1243-1251. [PMID: 34519243 PMCID: PMC10416590 DOI: 10.1177/21925682211025501] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Retrospective database study. OBJECTIVES To compare the accuracy and safety of 2 types of a computer-assisted navigation system for percutaneous pedicle screw placement during endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. METHODS From May 2019 to January 2020, data of 56 patients who underwent Endo-LIF with a robot-assisted system and with an electromagnetic navigation system were compared. The pedicles in all patients were subjected to postoperative CT scan to assess screw correction by measuring the perpendicular distance between the pedicle cortical wall and the screw surface. The registration and matching time, guide-wire insertion time, the entire surgery time, and X-ray exposure time were recorded. RESULTS In the robot-assisted group, 25 cases with 100 percutaneous pedicle screws were included, and the excellent and good rate was 95%. In the electromagnetic navigation group, 31 cases with 124 screws were included, and the excellent rate was 97.6%. There was no statistical difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The registration time and the total time for the surgery also showed no statistical differences (P > 0.05). The main difference between the two groups was the guide-wire insertion time and the X-ray exposure time (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Both electromagnetic navigation and robot-assisted are safe and efficient for percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Electromagnetic navigation system has obvious advantages over robot-assisted in terms of faster guide-wire placement and less X-ray exposure. Robot-assisted for percutaneous pedicle screw placement offers a preoperative planning system and a stable registration system, with obvious drawbacks of a strict training curve.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Derong Xu
- Department of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China
| | - Xuexiao Ma
- Department of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China
| | - Lei Xie
- Shanghai Key Lab of Molecular Catalysis and Innovative Materials, iChEM Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Chuanli Zhou
- Department of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China
| | - Biao Kong
- Shanghai Key Lab of Molecular Catalysis and Innovative Materials, iChEM Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cannon PC, Ferguson JM, Pitt EB, Shrand JA, Setia SA, Nimmagadda N, Barth EJ, Kavoussi NL, Galloway RL, Herrell SD, Webster RJ. A Safe Framework for Quantitative In Vivo Human Evaluation of Image Guidance. IEEE OPEN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 2023; 5:133-139. [PMID: 38487093 PMCID: PMC10939321 DOI: 10.1109/ojemb.2023.3271853] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2022] [Revised: 02/16/2023] [Accepted: 03/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/17/2024] Open
Abstract
Goal: We present a new framework for in vivo image guidance evaluation and provide a case study on robotic partial nephrectomy. Methods: This framework (called the "bystander protocol") involves two surgeons, one who solely performs the therapeutic process without image guidance, and another who solely periodically collects data to evaluate image guidance. This isolates the evaluation from the therapy, so that in-development image guidance systems can be tested without risk of negatively impacting the standard of care. We provide a case study applying this protocol in clinical cases during robotic partial nephrectomy surgery. Results: The bystander protocol was performed successfully in 6 patient cases. We find average lesion centroid localization error with our IGS system to be 6.5 mm in vivo compared to our prior result of 3.0 mm in phantoms. Conclusions: The bystander protocol is a safe, effective method for testing in-development image guidance systems in human subjects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Naren Nimmagadda
- Vanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleTN37232USA
- The Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreMD21287USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Malham GM, Munday NR. Comparison of novel machine vision spinal image guidance system with existing 3D fluoroscopy-based navigation system: a randomized prospective study. Spine J 2022; 22:561-569. [PMID: 34666179 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2021] [Revised: 10/01/2021] [Accepted: 10/01/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT The use of spinal image guidance systems (IGS) has increased patient safety, accuracy, operative efficiency, and reduced revision rates in pedicle screw placement procedures. Traditional intraoperative 3D fluoroscopy or CT imaging produces potentially harmful ionizing radiation and increases operative time to register the patient. An IGS, FLASH Navigation, uses machine vision through high resolution stereoscopic cameras and structured visible light to build a 3D topographical map of the patient's bony surface anatomy enabling navigation use without ionizing radiation. PURPOSE We aimed to compare FLASH navigation system to a widely used 3D fluoroscopic navigation (3D) platform by comparing radiation exposure and pedicle screw accuracy. DESIGN A randomized prospective comparative cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing open posterior lumbar instrumented fusion. PATIENT SAMPLE Adults diagnosed with spinal pathology requiring surgical treatment and planning for open posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws implanted into 1-4 vertebral levels. OUTCOME MEASURES Outcome measures included mean intraoperative fluoroscopy time and dose, mean CT dose length product (DLP) for preoperative and day 2 CT, pedicle screw accuracy by CT, estimated blood loss and revision surgery rate. METHODS Consecutive patients were randomized 1:1 to FLASH or 3D and underwent posterior lumbar instrumented fusion. Radiation doses were recorded from pre- and postoperative CT and intraoperative 3D fluoroscopy. 2 independent blinded radiologists reviewed pedicle screw accuracy on CT. RESULTS A total of 429 (n=210 FLASH, n=219 3D) pedicle screws were placed in 90 patients (n=45 FLASH, n=45 3D) over the 18-month study period. Mean age and indication for surgery were similar between both groups, with a non-significantly higher ratio of males in the 3D group. Mean intraoperative fluoroscopy time and doses were significantly reduced in FLASH compared to 3D (4.51±3.71s vs 79.6±23.0s, p<.001 and 80.9±68.1cGycm2 vs 3704.1±3442.4 cGycm2, p<.001, respectively). This represented a relative reduction of 94.3% in the total intraoperative radiation time and a 97.8% reduction in the total intraoperative radiation dose. Mean preoperative CT DLP and mean day 2 postoperative CT DLP were significantly reduced in FLASH compared to 3D (662.0±440.4mGy-cm vs 1008.9±616.3 mGy-cm, p<.001 and 577.9±294.3 mGy-cm vs 980.7±441.6 mGy-cm, p<.001, respectively). This represented relative reductions of 34.4% and 41.0% in the preoperative CT dose and postoperative total DLP, respectively. The FLASH group required an average of 1.2 registrations in each case with an average of 2447 (±961.3) data points registered with a mean registration time of 106s (±52.1). A rapid re-registration mechanism was utilized in 22% (n=10/45) of cases and took 22.7s (±11.3). Re-registration was used in 7% (n=3/45) in the 3D group. Pedicle screw accuracy was high in FLASH (98.1%) and 3D (97.3%) groups with no pedicle breach >2mm in either group (p<.001). EBL was not statistically different between the groups (p=.38). No neurovascular injuries occurred, and no patients required return to theatre for screw repositioning. CONCLUSIONS FLASH and 3D IGS demonstrate high accuracy for pedicle screw placement. FLASH showed significant reduction in intraoperative radiation time and dose with lower but non-significant blood loss. FLASH showed significant reduction in preoperative and postoperative radiation, but this may be associated to the lower number of males/females preponderance in this group. FLASH provides similar accuracy to contemporary IGS without requiring 3D-fluoroscopy or radiolucent operating tables. Reducing registration time and specialized equipment may reduce costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory M Malham
- Epworth Hospital, Richmond, Melbourne, Australia; Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sommer F, Goldberg JL, McGrath L, Kirnaz S, Medary B, Härtl R. Image Guidance in Spinal Surgery: A Critical Appraisal and Future Directions. Int J Spine Surg 2021; 15:S74-S86. [PMID: 34675032 DOI: 10.14444/8142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Image-guided spinal surgery (IGSS) underwent rapid development over the past decades. The goal of IGSS is to increase patient safety and improve workflow. We present an overview of the history of IGSS, illustrate its current state, and highlight future developments. Currently, IGSS requires an image set, a tracking system, and a calibration method. IMAGING Two-dimensional images have many disadvantages as a source for navigation. Currently, the most common navigation technique is three-dimensional (3D) navigation based on cross-sectional imaging techniques such as cone-beam computed tomography (CT) or fan-beam CT. TRACKING Electromagnetic tracking uses an electromagnetic field to localize instruments. Optical tracking using infrared cameras has currently become one of the most common tracking methods in IGSS. CALIBRATION The three most common techniques currently used are the point-matching registration technique, the surface-matching registration technique, and the automated registration technique. FUTURE Augmented reality (AR) describes a computer-generated image that can be superimposed onto the real-world environment. Marking pathologies and anatomical landmarks are a few examples of many possible future applications. Additionally, AR offers a wide range of possibilities in surgical training. The latest development in IGSS is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). The presently available data on RAS are very encouraging, but further improvements of these procedures is expected. CONCLUSION IGSS significantly evolved since its inception and is becoming a routinely used technology. In the future, IGSS will combine the advantages of "active/freehand 3D navigation" with AR and RAS and will one day find its way into all aspects of spinal surgery, not only in instrumented procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fabian Sommer
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York
| | - Jacob L Goldberg
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York
| | - Lynn McGrath
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York
| | - Sertac Kirnaz
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York
| | - Branden Medary
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York
| | - Roger Härtl
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
The advancements in computing and digital localizer technologies has led to the evolving clinical application of image-guided technology for the surgical management of spinal disorders. Image-guided spinal navigation addresses the limitations of fluoroscopy and improves the accurate placement of fixation screws. Several navigation platforms are currently available, each having its own unique advantages and disadvantages. The most recent spinal navigation system developed utilizes machine vision structured light imaging which creates a precise and detailed three-dimensional image of the exposed surface anatomy and co-registers it to a pre-operatively or intra-operatively acquired image. This system improves upon the intraoperative workflow and efficiency of the navigation process. With the continued advancements in machine vision, there is a potential for clinical applications that extend beyond surgical navigation. These applications include reducing the potential for wrong level spine surgery and providing for real-time tracking of spinal deformity correction. As the adoption and clinical experience with navigation continues to expand and evolve, the technology that enables navigation also continues to evolve.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iain H Kalfas
- Cleveland Clinic, Department of Neurosurgery, Cleveland, OH, United States
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Mao JZ, Agyei JO, Khan A, Hess RM, Jowdy PK, Mullin JP, Pollina J. Technologic Evolution of Navigation and Robotics in Spine Surgery: A Historical Perspective. World Neurosurg 2020; 145:159-167. [PMID: 32916361 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.08.224] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2020] [Revised: 08/30/2020] [Accepted: 08/31/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Spine surgery is continuously evolving. The synergy between medical imaging and advances in computation has allowed for stereotactic neuronavigation and its integration with robotic technology to assist in spine surgery. The discovery of x-rays in 1895, the development of image intensifiers in 1940, and then advancements in computational science and integration have allowed for the development of computed tomography. In combination with the advancements of stereotaxy in the late 1980s, and manipulation of volumetric and special data for 3-dimensional reconstruction in 1998, computed tomography has revolutionized neuronavigational systems. Integrating all these technologies, robotics in spine surgery was introduced in 2004. Since then, it has become a safe modality that can reproducibly place accurate pedicle screws. Robotics may have the added benefits of improving the surgical workflow and optimizing surgeon ergonomics. Growing at a rapid rate, the second-generation spinal robotics have overcome preliminary limitations and errors. However, comparatively, robotics in spine surgery remains in its infancy. By leveraging technologic advancements in medical imaging, computation, and stereotactic navigation, robotics in spine surgery will continue to mature and expand in utility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Z Mao
- Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Buffalo General Medical Center, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA
| | - Justice O Agyei
- Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Buffalo General Medical Center, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA
| | - Asham Khan
- Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Buffalo General Medical Center, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA
| | - Ryan M Hess
- Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Buffalo General Medical Center, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA
| | - Patrick K Jowdy
- Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Buffalo General Medical Center, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA
| | - Jeffrey P Mullin
- Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Buffalo General Medical Center, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA
| | - John Pollina
- Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Buffalo General Medical Center, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA.
| |
Collapse
|