Jacob T Gibby1, Samuel A Swenson1, Steve Cvetko2, Raj Rao1,3, Ramin Javan4,5. 1. School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, 2300 I St NW, Washington, DC, 200052, USA. 2. Novarad Corporation, 752 East 1180 South, Suite 200, American Fork, UT, 84003, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, George Washington University Hospital, 900 23rd St NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA. 4. School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, 2300 I St NW, Washington, DC, 200052, USA. rjavan@mfa.gwu.edu. 5. Department of Neuroradiology, George Washington University Hospital, 900 23rd St NW, Suite G2092, Washington, DC, 20037, USA. rjavan@mfa.gwu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Augmented reality has potential to enhance surgical navigation and visualization. We determined whether head-mounted display augmented reality (HMD-AR) with superimposed computed tomography (CT) data could allow the wearer to percutaneously guide pedicle screw placement in an opaque lumbar model with no real-time fluoroscopic guidance. METHODS: CT imaging was obtained of a phantom composed of L1-L3 Sawbones vertebrae in opaque silicone. Preprocedural planning was performed by creating virtual trajectories of appropriate angle and depth for ideal approach into the pedicle, and these data were integrated into the Microsoft HoloLens using the Novarad OpenSight application allowing the user to view the virtual trajectory guides and CT images superimposed on the phantom in two and three dimensions. Spinal needles were inserted following the virtual trajectories to the point of contact with bone. Repeat CT revealed actual needle trajectory, allowing comparison with the ideal preprocedural paths. RESULTS: Registration of AR to phantom showed a roughly circular deviation with maximum average radius of 2.5 mm. Users took an average of 200 s to place a needle. Extrapolation of needle trajectory into the pedicle showed that of 36 needles placed, 35 (97%) would have remained within the pedicles. Needles placed approximated a mean distance of 4.69 mm in the mediolateral direction and 4.48 mm in the craniocaudal direction from pedicle bone edge. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first peer-reviewed report and evaluation of HMD-AR with superimposed 3D guidance utilizing CT for spinal pedicle guide placement for the purpose of cannulation without the use of fluoroscopy.
PURPOSE: Augmented reality has potential to enhance surgical navigation and visualization. We determined whether head-mounted display augmented reality (HMD-AR) with superimposed computed tomography (CT) data could allow the wearer to percutaneously guide pedicle screw placement in an opaque lumbar model with no real-time fluoroscopic guidance. METHODS: CT imaging was obtained of a phantom composed of L1-L3 Sawbones vertebrae in opaque silicone. Preprocedural planning was performed by creating virtual trajectories of appropriate angle and depth for ideal approach into the pedicle, and these data were integrated into the Microsoft HoloLens using the Novarad OpenSight application allowing the user to view the virtual trajectory guides and CT images superimposed on the phantom in two and three dimensions. Spinal needles were inserted following the virtual trajectories to the point of contact with bone. Repeat CT revealed actual needle trajectory, allowing comparison with the ideal preprocedural paths. RESULTS: Registration of AR to phantom showed a roughly circular deviation with maximum average radius of 2.5 mm. Users took an average of 200 s to place a needle. Extrapolation of needle trajectory into the pedicle showed that of 36 needles placed, 35 (97%) would have remained within the pedicles. Needles placed approximated a mean distance of 4.69 mm in the mediolateral direction and 4.48 mm in the craniocaudal direction from pedicle bone edge. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first peer-reviewed report and evaluation of HMD-AR with superimposed 3D guidance utilizing CT for spinal pedicle guide placement for the purpose of cannulation without the use of fluoroscopy.
Authors: Marius Karl Wolf; Claudio Rostetter; Bernd Stadlinger; Michael Locher; Georg Damerau Journal: Quintessence Int Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.677
Authors: R V Chandra; J Maingard; H Asadi; L-A Slater; T-L Mazwi; S Marcia; J Barr; J A Hirsch Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Long Qian; Alexander Barthel; Alex Johnson; Greg Osgood; Peter Kazanzides; Nassir Navab; Bernhard Fuerst Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-03-25 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Austin C Bourgeois; Austin R Faulkner; Yong C Bradley; Alexander S Pasciak; Patrick B Barlow; Judson R Gash; William S Reid Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2015-11
Authors: Leah A Groves; Patrick Carnahan; Daniel R Allen; Rankin Adam; Terry M Peters; Elvis C S Chen Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Joon Ha; Priya Parekh; David Gamble; James Masters; Peter Jun; Thomas Hester; Timothy Daniels; Mansur Halai Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2021-05-05