Timothy Y C So1, Ying-Lee Lam, Ka-Lok Mak. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, 30 Gascoigne Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR, China. soyc@ha.org.hk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted navigation was recently introduced to aid the resection of musculoskeletal tumors. However, it has not always been possible to directly navigate the osteotomy with real-time manipulation of available surgical tools. Registration techniques vary, although most existing systems use some form of surface matching. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We developed and evaluated a workflow model of computer-assisted bone tumor surgery and evaluated (1) the applicability of currently available software to different bones; (2) the accuracy of the navigated excision; and (3) the accuracy of a new registration technique of fluoro-CT matching. METHODS: Our workflow involved detailed preoperative planning with CT-MRI image fusion, three-dimensional mapping of the tumor, and planning of the resection plane. Using the workflow model, we reviewed 15 navigation procedures in 12 patients, including four with joint-saving resections and three with custom implant reconstructions. Intraoperatively, registration was performed with either paired points and surface matching (Group 1, n = 10) or a new technique of fluoro-CT image matching (Group 2, n = 5). All osteotomies were performed under direct computer navigation. Postoperatively, each case was evaluated for histologic margin and gross measurement of the achieved surgical margin. RESULTS: The margins were free from tumor in all resected specimens. In the Group 1 procedures, the correlation between preoperative planned margins and actual achieved margins was 0.631, whereas in Group 2 procedures (fluoro-CT matching), the correlation was 0.985. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest computer-assisted navigation is accurate and useful for bone tumor surgery. The new registration technique using fluoro-CT matching may allow more accurate resection of margins.
BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted navigation was recently introduced to aid the resection of musculoskeletal tumors. However, it has not always been possible to directly navigate the osteotomy with real-time manipulation of available surgical tools. Registration techniques vary, although most existing systems use some form of surface matching. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We developed and evaluated a workflow model of computer-assisted bone tumor surgery and evaluated (1) the applicability of currently available software to different bones; (2) the accuracy of the navigated excision; and (3) the accuracy of a new registration technique of fluoro-CT matching. METHODS: Our workflow involved detailed preoperative planning with CT-MRI image fusion, three-dimensional mapping of the tumor, and planning of the resection plane. Using the workflow model, we reviewed 15 navigation procedures in 12 patients, including four with joint-saving resections and three with custom implant reconstructions. Intraoperatively, registration was performed with either paired points and surface matching (Group 1, n = 10) or a new technique of fluoro-CT image matching (Group 2, n = 5). All osteotomies were performed under direct computer navigation. Postoperatively, each case was evaluated for histologic margin and gross measurement of the achieved surgical margin. RESULTS: The margins were free from tumor in all resected specimens. In the Group 1 procedures, the correlation between preoperative planned margins and actual achieved margins was 0.631, whereas in Group 2 procedures (fluoro-CT matching), the correlation was 0.985. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest computer-assisted navigation is accurate and useful for bone tumor surgery. The new registration technique using fluoro-CT matching may allow more accurate resection of margins.
Authors: Tobias Hüfner; Maurício Kfuri; Michael Galanski; Leonard Bastian; Martin Loss; Tim Pohlemann; Christian Krettek Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Christian Krettek; Jens Geerling; Leonard Bastian; Musa Citak; Ferdinand Rücker; Daniel Kendoff; Tobias Hüfner Journal: Injury Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Germán L Farfalli; José I Albergo; Lucas E Ritacco; Miguel A Ayerza; Federico E Milano; Luis A Aponte-Tinao Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Germán L Farfalli; Jose I Albergo; Nicolas S Piuzzi; Miguel A Ayerza; D Luis Muscolo; Lucas E Ritacco; Luis A Aponte-Tinao Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Fazel A Khan; Joseph D Lipman; Andrew D Pearle; Patrick J Boland; John H Healey Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-01-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Fazel Khan; Andrew Pearle; Christopher Lightcap; Patrick J Boland; John H Healey Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.176