Augmented and Virtual Reality Instrument Tracking for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Feasibility and Accuracy Study.

MINI: In a cadaveric animal study for pedicle cannulation using augmented reality surgical navigation with instrument tracking, 78 insertions were performed. A technical accuracy of 1.7 ± 1.0 mm at bone entry, 2.0 ± 1.3 mm at device tip and a clinical accuracy of 97.4-100% was achieved. STUDY DESIGN Cadaveric animal laboratory study. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of pedicle cannulation using an augmented reality surgical navigation (ARSN) system with automatic instrument tracking, yielding feedback of instrument position in relation to deep anatomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has the possibility of reducing surgical exposure resulting in shorter hospital stays, lower blood loss and infection rates compared to open surgery but the drawback of limiting visual feedback to the surgeon regarding deep anatomy. MISS is mainly performed using image-guided 2D fluoroscopy, thus exposing the staff to ionizing radiation. METHODS A hybrid OR equipped with a robotic C-arm with integrated optical cameras for augmented reality instrument navigation was used. In two pig cadavers, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were performed, a 3D model generated, and pedicle screw insertions were planned. Seventy-eight insertions were performed. Technical accuracy was assessed on post-insertion CBCTs by measuring the distance between the navigated device and the corresponding pre-planned path as well as the angular deviations. Drilling and hammering into the pedicle were also compared. Navigation time was measured. An independent reviewer assessed a simulated clinical accuracy according to Gertzbein. RESULTS The technical accuracy was 1.7 ± 1.0 mm at bone entry point and 2.0 ± 1.3 mm at device tip. The angular deviation was 1.7 ± 1.7° in the axial and 1.6 ± 1.2° in the sagittal plane. Navigation time per insertion was 195 ± 93 seconds. There was no difference in accuracy between hammering and drilling into the pedicle. The clinical accuracy was 97.4-100% depending on the screw size considered for placement. No ionizing radiation was used during navigation. CONCLUSION ARSN with instrument tracking for MISS is feasible, accurate and radiation-free during navigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.

[1]  Stephen M Pirris,et al.  Intraoperative image-guided spinal navigation: technical pitfalls and their avoidance. , 2014, Neurosurgical focus.

[2]  M. Shoham,et al.  BONE‐MOUNTED MINIATURE ROBOTIC GUIDANCE FOR PEDICLE SCREW AND TRANSLAMINAR FACET SCREW PLACEMENT: PART 2—EVALUATION OF SYSTEM ACCURACY , 2007, Neurosurgery.

[3]  Chee Keong Chan,et al.  The accuracy of 3D image navigation with a cutaneously fixed dynamic reference frame in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion , 2012, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[4]  V. Patel,et al.  One-step Minimally Invasive Pedicle Screw Instrumentation Using O-Arm and Stealth Navigation , 2018, Clinical spine surgery.

[5]  Safdar N. Khan,et al.  Does Less Invasive Spine Surgery Result in Increased Radiation Exposure? A Systematic Review , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[6]  Moon-Chan Kim,et al.  Factors affecting the accurate placement of percutaneous pedicle screws during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[7]  Michael Söderman,et al.  Pedicle Screw Placement Using Augmented Reality Surgical Navigation With Intraoperative 3D Imaging , 2018, Spine.

[8]  Paul D. Kim,et al.  An Anatomical Study of the Mid-Lateral Pars Relative to the Pedicle Footprint in the Lower Lumbar Spine , 2009, Spine.

[9]  Hua-Zi Xu,et al.  Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis , 2009, International Orthopaedics.

[10]  Michael Söderman,et al.  Feasibility and Accuracy of Thoracolumbar Minimally Invasive Pedicle Screw Placement With Augmented Reality Navigation Technology , 2018, Spine.

[11]  Kelvin Mok,et al.  Pedicle violation and Navigational errors in pedicle screw insertion using the intraoperative O-arm: A preliminary report , 2013, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[12]  Robert F Spetzler,et al.  Intraoperative Iso-C C-Arm Navigation in Craniospinal Surgery: The First 60 Cases , 2004, Neurosurgery.

[13]  Alexander S. Pasciak,et al.  Improved Accuracy of Minimally Invasive Transpedicular Screw Placement in the Lumbar Spine With 3-Dimensional Stereotactic Image Guidance: A Comparative Meta-Analysis , 2015, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[14]  Venkatesh Krishnan,et al.  Pull out strength calculator for pedicle screws using a surrogate ensemble approach , 2016, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[15]  Kevin T. Foley,et al.  Minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation utilizing O-arm fluoroscopy with computer-assisted navigation: Feasibility, technique, and preliminary results , 2010, Surgical neurology international.

[16]  A. Prescher,et al.  Computer-Assisted Orthopedic Surgery With Individual Templates and Comparison to Conventional Operation Method , 2001, Spine.

[17]  J. A. Carrino,et al.  Electromagnetic navigation for percutaneous guide-wire insertion: Accuracy and efficiency compared to conventional fluoroscopic guidance , 2009, NeuroImage.

[18]  D. Polly,et al.  Reliability of the Planned Pedicle Screw Trajectory versus the Actual Pedicle Screw Trajectory using Intra-operative 3D CT and Image Guidance , 2016, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[19]  J. Fandino,et al.  Validation and accuracy of intraoperative CT scan using the Philips AlluraXper FD20 angiography suite for assessment of spinal instrumentation , 2017, British journal of neurosurgery.

[20]  Y. Rampersaud,et al.  Perioperative Outcomes and Adverse Events of Minimally Invasive versus Open Posterior Lumbar Fusion: Meta-Analysis , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[21]  S. Gertzbein,et al.  Accuracy of Pedicular Screw Placement In Vivo , 1990, Spine.

[22]  D J Quint,et al.  Stereotactic Navigation for Placement of Pedicle Screws in the Thoracic Spine , 2001, Neurosurgery.

[23]  Huilin Yang,et al.  Accuracy of pedicle screw placement based on preoperative computed tomography versus intraoperative data set acquisition for spinal navigation system , 2017, Journal of orthopaedic surgery.

[24]  Kevin Phan,et al.  Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Surgery Spinal Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2017, Spine.

[25]  C. Raftopoulos,et al.  Spine Navigation Based on 3-Dimensional Robotic Fluoroscopy for Accurate Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement: A Prospective Study of 66 Consecutive Cases. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[26]  Frank Acosta,et al.  Breaking Through the "Glass Ceiling" of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. , 2016, Spine.

[27]  Hildegard Dohmen,et al.  Accuracy of Image-Guided Pedicle Screw Placement Using Intraoperative Computed Tomography-Based Navigation With Automated Referencing. Part II: Thoracolumbar Spine , 2011, Neurosurgery.

[28]  M. Rentschler,et al.  A new 3-dimensional method for measuring precision in surgical navigation and methods to optimize navigation accuracy , 2016, European Spine Journal.

[29]  Ramin Javan,et al.  Head-mounted display augmented reality to guide pedicle screw placement utilizing computed tomography , 2018, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[30]  Toshifumi Ozaki,et al.  Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion in posterior scoliosis surgery: a comparison between intraoperative navigation and preoperative navigation techniques , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[31]  S. Kishida,et al.  Accuracy of powered surgical instruments compared with manual instruments for pedicle screw insertion: Evaluation using o-arm-based navigation in scoliosis surgery. , 2018, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[32]  Victor X D Yang,et al.  Spinal intraoperative three-dimensional navigation: correlation between clinical and absolute engineering accuracy. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[33]  R. Nachabe,et al.  Surgical Navigation Technology Based on Augmented Reality and Integrated 3D Intraoperative Imaging , 2016, Spine.

[34]  Tsung-Jen Huang,et al.  Comparison of minimally invasive spine surgery using intraoperative computed tomography integrated navigation, fluoroscopy, and conventional open surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis: a prospective registry-based cohort study. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[35]  B. Meyer,et al.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature , 2017, Acta Neurochirurgica.