Renaud Lafage1, Sébastien Pesenti2,3, Virginie Lafage1, Frank J Schwab1. 1. Spine Research Laboratory, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E 71st Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA. 2. Spine Research Laboratory, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E 71st Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA. sebastien.pesenti@ap-hm.fr. 3. Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, UMR 7287, ISM, Institut des Sciences du Mouvement, Marseille, France. sebastien.pesenti@ap-hm.fr.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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