Radiation dose and image quality comparison during spine surgery with two different, intraoperative 3D imaging navigation systems

Abstract Careful protocol selection is required during intraoperative three‐dimensional (3D) imaging for spine surgery to manage patient radiation dose and achieve clinical image quality. Radiation dose and image quality of a Medtronic O‐arm commonly used during spine surgery, and a Philips hybrid operating room equipped with XperCT C‐arm 3D cone‐beam CT (hCBCT) are compared. The mobile O‐arm (mCBCT) offers three different radiation dose settings (low, standard, and high), for four different patient sizes (small, medium, large, and extra large). The patient's radiation dose rate is constant during the entire 3D scan. In contrast, C‐CBCT spine imaging uses three different field of views (27, 37, and 48 cm) using automatic exposure control (AEC) that modulates the patient's radiation dose rate during the 3D scan based on changing patient thickness. hCBCT uses additional x‐ray beam filtration. Small, medium, and large trunk phantoms designed to mimic spine and soft tissue were imaged to assess radiation dose and image quality of the two systems. The estimated measured “patient” dose for the small, medium, and large phantoms imaged by the mCBCT considering all the dose settings ranged from 9.4–27.6 mGy, 8.9–33.3 mGy, and 13.8–40.6 mGy, respectively. The “patient” dose values for the same phantoms imaged with hCBCT were 2.8–4.6 mGy, 5.7–10.0 mGy, and 11.0–15.2 mGy. The CNR for the small, medium, and large phantoms was 2.9 to 3.7, 2.0 to 3.0, and 2.5 to 2.6 times higher with the hCBCT system, respectively. Hounsfield unit accuracy, noise, and uniformity of hCBCT exceeded the performance of the mCBCT; spatial resolution was comparable. Added x‐ray beam filtration and AEC capability achieved clinical image quality for intraoperative spine surgery at reduced radiation dose to the patient in comparison to a reference O‐arm system without these capabilities.

[1]  J. Boone,et al.  Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in Pediatric and Adult Body CT Examinations , 2011 .

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

[3]  Marilyn Stovall,et al.  Cancer Mortality among Women Frequently Exposed to Radiographic Examinations for Spinal Disorders , 2010, Radiation research.

[4]  Manuel Desco,et al.  Assessment of intraoperative 3D imaging alternatives for IOERT dose estimation. , 2017, Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik.

[5]  T. Tajsic,et al.  Spinal navigation for minimally invasive thoracic and lumbosacral spine fixation: implications for radiation exposure, operative time, and accuracy of pedicle screw placement , 2018, European Spine Journal.

[6]  Steven L. Hartmann,et al.  Spinal Navigation and Imaging: History, Trends, and Future , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  J. Kaspersen,et al.  Dose optimisation for intraoperative cone-beam flat-detector CT in paediatric spinal surgery , 2012, Pediatric Radiology.

[8]  F. Galbusera,et al.  Computed Tomography-Based Image-Guided System in Spinal Surgery: State of the Art Through 10 Years of Experience , 2015, Neurosurgery.

[9]  A. Cowen,et al.  Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x-ray imaging. , 2010, Medical physics.

[10]  Young Lu,et al.  Three-dimensional Intraoperative Imaging Modalities in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Narrative Review , 2014, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[11]  Mikael Gunnarsson,et al.  Optimization of Radiation Exposure and Image Quality of the Cone-beam O-arm Intraoperative Imaging System in Spinal Surgery , 2012, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[12]  T. Liebig,et al.  Intraoperative Computed Tomography Versus 3D C-Arm Imaging for Navigated Spinal Instrumentation , 2018, Spine.

[13]  D. Ruijters,et al.  Reduction of Coil Mass Artifacts in High-Resolution Flat Detector Conebeam CT of Cerebral Stent-Assisted Coiling , 2013, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[14]  W A Kalender,et al.  Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements. , 1999, Medical physics.

[15]  Image performance evaluation of a cone beam O-arm imaging system. , 2013, Journal of X-ray science and technology.

[16]  Courtney O’Donnell,et al.  Comparative Radiation Exposure Using Standard Fluoroscopy Versus Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Posterior Instrumented Fusion in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis , 2014, Spine.

[17]  W A Kalender,et al.  Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies. , 1999, Medical physics.

[18]  Jiang Hsieh,et al.  Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances, Fourth Edition , 2022 .

[19]  Robert A Perera,et al.  A retrospective comparison of intraoperative CT and fluoroscopy evaluating radiation exposure in posterior spinal fusions for scoliosis , 2017, Patient Safety in Surgery.

[20]  Marilyn Stovall,et al.  Breast Cancer Mortality After Diagnostic Radiography: Findings From the U.S. Scoliosis Cohort Study , 2000, Spine.

[21]  Alexander Mason,et al.  The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. , 2014, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[22]  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.

[23]  Beth A Schueler,et al.  Switching to a Pediatric Dose O-Arm Protocol in Spine Surgery Significantly Reduced Patient Radiation Exposure , 2016, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[24]  W. Truong,et al.  The Accuracy of Intraoperative O-arm Images for the Assessment of Pedicle Screw Postion , 2012, Spine.

[25]  Jie Zhang,et al.  Dosimetric characterization of a cone-beam O-arm imaging system. , 2009, Journal of X-ray science and technology.

[26]  B. Meyer,et al.  Radiation Exposure to the Surgeon and the Patient During Posterior Lumbar Spinal Instrumentation: A Prospective Randomized Comparison of Navigated Versus Non-navigated Freehand Techniques , 2014, Spine.

[27]  R. Härtl,et al.  Pedicle screw navigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perforation risk for computer-navigated versus freehand insertion. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[28]  Andrew Pennington,et al.  Patient and surgeon radiation exposure during spinal instrumentation using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation. , 2016, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[29]  Ping Zhou,et al.  Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[30]  Xiaojian Cao,et al.  Position and complications of pedicle screw insertion with or without image-navigation techniques in the thoracolumbar spine: a meta-analysis of comparative studies , 2014, Journal of biomedical research.

[31]  Kern Singh,et al.  Radiation exposure and reduction in the operating room: Perspectives and future directions in spine surgery , 2017, World journal of orthopedics.

[32]  Using the ACR CT accreditation phantom for routine image quality assurance on both CT and CBCT imaging systems in a radiotherapy environment , 2014, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[33]  N Shandala,et al.  Scope of radiological protection control measures. , 2007, Annals of the ICRP.

[34]  P. D. De with,et al.  High-resolution 3D X-ray imaging of intracranial nitinol stents , 2011, Neuroradiology.

[35]  Michael D. Boyd,et al.  Economic evaluation comparing intraoperative cone beam CT-based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for the placement of spinal pedicle screws: a patient-level data cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2016, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[36]  A Uneri,et al.  Image quality and dose characteristics for an O‐arm intraoperative imaging system with model‐based image reconstruction , 2018, Medical physics.

[37]  Jack Valentin,et al.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. , 2007, Annals of the ICRP.

[38]  K. Schaller,et al.  Clinically relevant complications related to pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgery and their management: a literature review of 35,630 pedicle screws. , 2011, Neurosurgical focus.

[39]  Keith J Strauss,et al.  Patient size measured on CT images as a function of age at a tertiary care children's hospital. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[40]  B. Verhoeven,et al.  Significant Radiation Dose Reduction in the Hybrid Operating Room Using a Novel X-ray Imaging Technology. , 2015, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[41]  Ahmed A. Aoude,et al.  Differences between Manufacturers of Computed Tomography–Based Computer-Assisted Surgery Systems Do Exist , 2017, Global spine journal.

[42]  Willi A Kalender,et al.  Dose in x-ray computed tomography , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.