Literature DB >> 29427011

Self-learning computers for surgical planning and prediction of postoperative alignment.

Renaud Lafage1, Sébastien Pesenti2,3, Virginie Lafage1, Frank J Schwab1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In past decades, the role of sagittal alignment has been widely demonstrated in the setting of spinal conditions. As several parameters can be affected, identifying the driver of the deformity is the cornerstone of a successful treatment approach. Despite the importance of restoring sagittal alignment for optimizing outcome, this task remains challenging. Self-learning computers and optimized algorithms are of great interest in spine surgery as in that they facilitate better planning and prediction of postoperative alignment. Nowadays, computer-assisted tools are part of surgeons' daily practice; however, the use of such tools remains to be time-consuming.
METHODS: NARRATIVE REVIEW AND
RESULTS: Computer-assisted methods for the prediction of postoperative alignment consist of a three step analysis: identification of anatomical landmark, definition of alignment objectives, and simulation of surgery. Recently, complex rules for the prediction of alignment have been proposed. Even though this kind of work leads to more personalized objectives, the number of parameters involved renders it difficult for clinical use, stressing the importance of developing computer-assisted tools. The evolution of our current technology, including machine learning and other types of advanced algorithms, will provide powerful tools that could be useful in improving surgical outcomes and alignment prediction. These tools can combine different types of advanced technologies, such as image recognition and shape modeling, and using this technique, computer-assisted methods are able to predict spinal shape. The development of powerful computer-assisted methods involves the integration of several sources of information such as radiographic parameters (X-rays, MRI, CT scan, etc.), demographic information, and unusual non-osseous parameters (muscle quality, proprioception, gait analysis data). In using a larger set of data, these methods will aim to mimic what is actually done by spine surgeons, leading to real tailor-made solutions.
CONCLUSION: Integrating newer technology can change the current way of planning/simulating surgery. The use of powerful computer-assisted tools that are able to integrate several parameters and learn from experience can change the traditional way of selecting treatment pathways and counseling patients. However, there is still much work to be done to reach a desired level as noted in other orthopedic fields, such as hip surgery. Many of these tools already exist in non-medical fields and their adaptation to spine surgery is of considerable interest.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Machine learning; Sagittal alignment; Self-learning computers; Spine surgery; Surgical planning

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29427011     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5497-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  24 in total

1.  Adult Spinal Deformity Surgeons Are Unable to Accurately Predict Postoperative Spinal Alignment Using Clinical Judgment Alone.

Authors:  Tamir Ailon; Justin K Scheer; Virginie Lafage; Frank J Schwab; Eric Klineberg; Daniel M Sciubba; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; Lukas Zebala; Richard Hostin; Ibrahim Obeid; Tyler Koski; Michael P Kelly; Shay Bess; Christopher I Shaffrey; Justin S Smith; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2016-06-16

2.  The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Steven D Glassman; Keith Bridwell; John R Dimar; William Horton; Sigurd Berven; Frank Schwab
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Spino-pelvic parameters after surgery can be predicted: a preliminary formula and validation of standing alignment.

Authors:  Virginie Lafage; Frank Schwab; Shaleen Vira; Ashish Patel; Benjamin Ungar; Jean-Pierre Farcy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Mathematical calculation of pedicle subtraction osteotomy size to allow precision correction of fixed sagittal deformity.

Authors:  Stephen L Ondra; Shaden Marzouk; Tyler Koski; Fernando Silva; Sean Salehi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Assessment of symptomatic rod fracture after posterior instrumented fusion for adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Christopher P Ames; Jason Demakakos; Kai-Ming G Fu; Sassan Keshavarzi; Carol M Y Li; Vedat Deviren; Frank J Schwab; Virginie Lafage; Shay Bess
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.654

6.  Pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch predisposes to adjacent segment disease after lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Dominique A Rothenfluh; Daniel A Mueller; Esin Rothenfluh; Kan Min
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  The SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: assessment and clinical correlations based on a prospective operative and nonoperative cohort.

Authors:  Jamie Terran; Frank Schwab; Christopher I Shaffrey; Justin S Smith; Pierre Devos; Christopher P Ames; Kai-Ming G Fu; Douglas Burton; Richard Hostin; Eric Klineberg; Munish Gupta; Vedat Deviren; Gregory Mundis; Robert Hart; Shay Bess; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Corrective osteotomy of the spine in ankylosing spondylitis. Experience with 66 cases.

Authors:  F P Camargo; E N Cordeiro; M M Napoli
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Validation of a new computer-assisted tool to measure spino-pelvic parameters.

Authors:  Renaud Lafage; Emmanuelle Ferrero; Jensen K Henry; Vincent Challier; Bassel Diebo; Barthelemy Liabaud; Virginie Lafage; Frank Schwab
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Influence of pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch on surgical outcomes of short-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Yasuchika Aoki; Arata Nakajima; Hiroshi Takahashi; Masato Sonobe; Fumiaki Terajima; Masahiko Saito; Kazuhisa Takahashi; Seiji Ohtori; Atsuya Watanabe; Takayuki Nakajima; Makoto Takazawa; Sumihisa Orita; Yawara Eguchi; Koichi Nakagawa
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  8 in total

1.  Automated Measurement of Lumbar Lordosis on Radiographs Using Machine Learning and Computer Vision.

Authors:  Brian H Cho; Deepak Kaji; Zoe B Cheung; Ivan B Ye; Ray Tang; Amy Ahn; Oscar Carrillo; John T Schwartz; Aly A Valliani; Eric K Oermann; Varun Arvind; Daniel Ranti; Li Sun; Jun S Kim; Samuel K Cho
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2019-08-13

2.  Autonomous image segmentation and identification of anatomical landmarks from lumbar spine intraoperative computed tomography scans using machine learning: A validation study.

Authors:  Krzyzstof Siemionow; Cristian Luciano; Craig Forsthoefel; Suavi Aydogmus
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2020-06-05

Review 3.  Smart Technology and Orthopaedic Surgery: Current Concepts Regarding the Impact of Smartphones and Wearable Technology on Our Patients and Practice.

Authors:  Neil V Shah; Richard Gold; Qurratul-Ain Dar; Bassel G Diebo; Carl B Paulino; Qais Naziri
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2021-11-03

Review 4.  Imaging in Spine Surgery: Current Concepts and Future Directions.

Authors:  Garrett K Harada; Zakariah K Siyaji; Sadaf Younis; Philip K Louie; Dino Samartzis; Howard S An
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2019-11-01

Review 5.  A narrative review of machine learning as promising revolution in clinical practice of scoliosis.

Authors:  Kai Chen; Xiao Zhai; Kaiqiang Sun; Haojue Wang; Changwei Yang; Ming Li
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-01

6.  Assessment of Clinical Decision Support System Efficiency in Spinal Neurosurgery for Personalized Minimally Invasive Technologies Used on Lumbar Spine.

Authors:  V А Byvaltsev; А А Kalinin
Journal:  Sovrem Tekhnologii Med       Date:  2021-10-29

7.  Can Machine Learning Accurately Predict Postoperative Compensation for the Uninstrumented Thoracic Spine and Pelvis After Fusion From the Lower Thoracic Spine to the Sacrum?

Authors:  Nathan J Lee; Zeeshan M Sardar; Venkat Boddapati; Justin Mathew; Meghan Cerpa; Eric Leung; Joseph Lombardi; Lawrence G Lenke; Ronald A Lehman
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-10-08

8.  Translating Data Analytics Into Improved Spine Surgery Outcomes: A Roadmap for Biomedical Informatics Research in 2021.

Authors:  Jacob K Greenberg; Ayodamola Otun; Zoher Ghogawala; Po-Yin Yen; Camilo A Molina; David D Limbrick; Randi E Foraker; Michael P Kelly; Wilson Z Ray
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2021-05-11
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.