Comparing the Efficacy of Radiation Free Machine-Vision Image-Guided Surgery With Traditional 2-Dimensional Fluoroscopy: A Randomized,Single-Center Study

Abstract

Background: Three-dimensional (3D) computer-assisted navigation (CAN) has emerged as a potential alternative to 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy in the surgical placement of spinal instrumentation. Recently, 3D-CAN systems have improved significantly in their ability to provide real-time anatomical referencing while shortening the registration and set-up time. A novel system in navigation, Machine-Vision Image-Guided Surgery (MvIGS; 7D Surgical, Toronto, Canada) was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration, but its potential benefits in reducing intra-operative radiation exposure to patients and enhancing surgical accuracy of pedicle screw placement are not fully known. Purpose: We sought to conduct a prospective, randomized, clinical study comparing the 3D-MvIGS spinal navigation system and 2D-fluoroscopy for pedicle screw insertion up to 3 levels (T10-S1) and for various measures of surgical efficacy. Methods: Sixty-two eligible patients were randomized to receive spine surgery using either the 3D-MvIGS group or the conventional 2D-fluoroscopy for pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Intra-operative parameters and procedure-related unintended protocol violations were recorded. Results: Operative time and estimated blood loss were not significantly different between groups. Radiation time and exposure to patients were significantly reduced in the 3D-MvIGS group. There was no difference between groups in pedicle screw placement accuracy (2D-fluoroscopy group, 96.6%; 3D-MvIGS group, 94.2%). There were no major complications or cases that required revision surgery. Conclusion: The 3D-MvIGS navigation system performed comparably with 2D-fluoroscopy in terms of pedicle screw placement accuracy and operative time. The 3D-MvIGS showed a significant reduction in radiation exposure to patients. In more complex cases or larger cohorts, the true value of greater anatomical visualization can be elucidated.

Keywords

Imaging spine lumbar spine fusion operative treatments

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Balling

Learning curve analysis of 3D-fluoroscopy image-guided pedicle screw insertions in lumbar single-level fusion procedures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018;138(11):1501–1509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2994-x.

Bourgeois

Faulkner

Pasciak

Bradley

YC.

The evolution of image-guided lumbosacral spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2015;3(5):69. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.02.01.

Bratschitsch

Leitner

Stücklschweiger

, et al. Radiation exposure of patient and operating room personnel by fluoroscopy and navigation during spinal surgery. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):17652. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53472-z.

Fan

Liu

, et al. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement comparing robot-assisted technology and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided method in spine surgery: an updated meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(22):e10970. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010970.

Guha

Yang

VXD

. Perspective review on applications of optics in spinal surgery. J Biomed Opt. 2018;23(6):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.23.6.060601.

Jakubovic

Guha

Gupta

, et al. High speed, high density intraoperative 3d optical topographical imaging with efficient registration to MRI and CT for craniospinal surgical navigation. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):14894. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32424-z.

Lieberman

Togawa

Kayanja

, et al. Bone-mounted miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw placement: part I—technical development and a test case result. Neurosurgery. 2006;59(3):641–650. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000229055.00829.5B.

Malham

Wells-Quinn

What should my hospital buy next? Guidelines for the acquisition and application of imaging, navigation, and robotics for spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2019;5(1):155–165. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.02.04.

Mason

Paulsen

Babuska

, et al. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(2):196–203. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.11.SPINE13413.

10.

Perdomo-Pantoja

Ishida

Zygourakis

, et al. Accuracy of current techniques for placement of pedicle screws in the spine: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 51,161 screws. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:664–678.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.217.

11.

Rahmathulla

Nottmeier

Pirris

Deen

Pichelmann

MA.

Intraoperative image-guided spinal navigation: technical pitfalls and their avoidance. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(3):E3. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.1.FOCUS13516.

12.

Schmidt

Lekuya

Kirnaz

, et al. Novel MIS 3D NAV single step pedicle screw system (SSPSS): workflow, accuracy and initial clinical experience [published online ahead of print January 12, 2021]. Global Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568220976393.

13.

Tian

HZ.

Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2009;33(4):895–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0792-3.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.79 MB