Navigation-assisted fluoroscopy in minimally invasive direct lateral interbody fusion: a cadaveric study

Background Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is dependent on intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging for visualization, which significantly increases exposure to radiation. Navigation-assisted fluoroscopy (NAV) can potentially decrease radiation exposure and improve the operating room environment by reducing the need for real-time fluoroscopy. The direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) procedure is a technique for MIS intervertebral lumbar and thoracic interbody fusions. This study assesses the use of navigation for the DLIF procedure in comparison to standard fluoroscopy (FLUORO), as well as the accuracy of the NAV MIS DLIF procedure. Methods Three fresh whole-body cadavers underwent multiple DLIF procedures at the T10-L5 levels via either NAV or FLUORO. Radiation exposure and surgical times were recorded and compared between groups. An additional cadaver was used to evaluate the accuracy of the NAV system for the DLIF procedure by measuring the deviation error as the surgeon worked further from the anterior superior iliac spine tracker. Results Approach, discectomy, and total fluoroscopy times for FLUORO were longer than NAV (P < .05). In contrast, the setup time was longer in NAV (P = .005). Cage insertion and total operating times were similar for both. Radiation exposure to the surgeon for NAV was significantly less than FLUORO (P < .05). Accuracy of the NAV system was within 1 mm for L2-5. Conclusion Navigation for the DLIF procedure is feasible. Accuracy for this procedure over the most common levels (L2-5) is likely sufficient for safe clinical application. Although initial setup times were longer with NAV, simultaneous anteroposterior and lateral imaging with the NAV system resulted in overall surgery times similar to FLUORO. Navigation minimizes fluoroscopic radiation exposure. Clinical significance Navigation for the DLIF procedure is accurate and decreases radiation exposure without increasing the overall surgical time.

[1]  Charles Kuntz,et al.  Accuracy of Thoracic Vertebral Body Screw Placement Using Standard Fluoroscopy, Fluoroscopic Image Guidance, and Computed Tomographic Image Guidance: A Cadaver Study , 2003, Spine.

[2]  N. Theocharopoulos,et al.  Fluoroscopically Assisted Surgical Treatments of Spinal Disorders: Conceptus Radiation Doses and Risks , 2006, Spine.

[3]  Rick Sasso,et al.  An Evaluation of Image-Guided Technologies in the Placement of Anterior Thoracic Vertebral Body Screws in Spinal Trauma: A Cadaver Study , 2005, The journal of spinal cord medicine.

[4]  P Merloz,et al.  Pedicle Screw Placement Using Image Guided Techniques , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[5]  Sunanda Mitra,et al.  Toward the Improvement of Image-Guided Interventions for Minimally Invasive Surgery: Three Factors That Affect Performance , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa,et al.  Accuracy Over Space and Time of Computer-Assisted Fluoroscopic Navigation in the Lumbar Spine In Vivo , 2006, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[7]  H. Aryan,et al.  Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[8]  J. Damilakis,et al.  Occupational Gonadal and Embryo/Fetal Doses From Fluoroscopically Assisted Surgical Treatments of Spinal Disorders , 2004, Spine.

[9]  H Labelle,et al.  Comparative results between conventional and computer-assisted pedicle screw installation in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. , 2000, Spine.

[10]  Choll W. Kim,et al.  Surgeons’ Perceptions of Spinal Navigation: Analysis of Key Factors Affecting the Lack of Adoption of Spinal Navigation Technology , 2008, SAS Journal.

[11]  Richard Assaker,et al.  Transpedicular Screw Placement: Image-Guided Versus Lateral-View Fluoroscopy:In Vitro Simulation , 2001, Spine.

[12]  Tsung-Ting Tsai,et al.  Computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation of pedicle screw insertion: an in vivo feasibility study. , 2004, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[13]  N. Theocharopoulos,et al.  Occupational exposure from common fluoroscopic projections used in orthopaedic surgery. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[14]  J. Seldomridge,et al.  Minimally invasive spine surgery. , 2010, American journal of orthopedics.

[15]  Choll W. Kim,et al.  Use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy to decrease radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[16]  Kevin T Foley,et al.  Intraoperative Spinal Navigation , 2003, Spine.

[17]  Y. Rampersaud,et al.  Radiation Exposure to the Spine Surgeon During Fluoroscopically Assisted Pedicle Screw Insertion , 2000, Spine.

[18]  Maurice M. Smith,et al.  Image-guided spine surgery. , 1996, Neurosurgery clinics of North America.

[19]  Rick C Sasso,et al.  Computer-assisted Spinal Navigation Versus Serial Radiography and Operative Time for Posterior Spinal Fusion at L5-S1 , 2007, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[20]  L. Amiot,et al.  Computed Tomography-Based Navigation for Hip, Knee, and Spine Surgery , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  Tsung-Ting Tsai,et al.  Computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation of pedicle screw insertion An in vivo feasibility study , 2004 .

[22]  I Anzai,et al.  [Radiation exposure]. , 1968, Sogo kango. Comprehensive nursing, quarterly.

[23]  A. Vaccaro,et al.  The Use of Computerized Image Guidance in Lumbar Disk Arthroplasty , 2006, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.