Literature DB >> 30925479

Augmented reality-assisted pedicle screw insertion: a cadaveric proof-of-concept study.

Camilo A Molina1, Nicholas Theodore1, A Karim Ahmed1, Erick M Westbroek1, Yigal Mirovsky2, Ran Harel3, Emanuele Orru'4, Majid Khan4, Timothy Witham1, Daniel M Sciubba1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Augmented reality (AR) is a novel technology that has the potential to increase the technical feasibility, accuracy, and safety of conventional manual and robotic computer-navigated pedicle insertion methods. Visual data are directly projected to the operator’s retina and overlaid onto the surgical field, thereby removing the requirement to shift attention to a remote display. The objective of this study was to assess the comparative accuracy of AR-assisted pedicle screw insertion in comparison to conventional pedicle screw insertion methods. METHODS Five cadaveric male torsos were instrumented bilaterally from T6 to L5 for a total of 120 inserted pedicle screws. Postprocedural CT scans were obtained, and screw insertion accuracy was graded by 2 independent neuroradiologists using both the Gertzbein scale (GS) and a combination of that scale and the Heary classification, referred to in this paper as the Heary-Gertzbein scale (HGS). Non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing the accuracy to freehand, manual computer-navigated, and robotics-assisted computer-navigated insertion accuracy rates reported in the literature. User experience analysis was conducted via a user experience questionnaire filled out by operators after the procedures. RESULTS The overall screw placement accuracy achieved with the AR system was 96.7% based on the HGS and 94.6% based on the GS. Insertion accuracy was non-inferior to accuracy reported for manual computer-navigated pedicle insertion based on both the GS and the HGS scores. When compared to accuracy reported for robotics-assisted computer-navigated insertion, accuracy achieved with the AR system was found to be non-inferior when assessed with the GS, but superior when assessed with the HGS. Last, accuracy results achieved with the AR system were found to be superior to results obtained with freehand insertion based on both the HGS and the GS scores. Accuracy results were not found to be inferior in any comparison. User experience analysis yielded “excellent” usability classification. CONCLUSIONS AR-assisted pedicle screw insertion is a technically feasible and accurate insertion method.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AR-HMD = augmented reality head-mounted display; GS = Gertzbein scale; HGS = Heary-Gertzbein scale; LCL = lower control limit; LS = least squares; LSCL = lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit; NI = non-inferiority margin; PRC = percentage of reference control; UEQ = user experience questionnaire; augmented reality; augmented reality–assisted surgery; cadaveric trial; computer-navigated surgery; neuronavigation; robotic spine surgery; surgical technique

Year:  2019        PMID: 30925479     DOI: 10.3171/2018.12.SPINE181142

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  15 in total

1.  Development of an Intraoperative Pipeline for Holographic Mixed Reality Visualization During Spinal Fusion Surgery.

Authors:  Vivek P Buch; Kobina G Mensah-Brown; James W Germi; Brian J Park; Peter J Madsen; Austin J Borja; Debanjan Haldar; Patricia Basenfelder; Jang W Yoon; James M Schuster; Han-Chiao I Chen
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 2.058

Review 2.  Intra-operative wearable visualization in spine surgery: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Hasan S Ahmad; Jang W Yoon
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-03

Review 3.  Augmented Reality in Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Andrew Hersh; Smruti Mahapatra; Carly Weber-Levine; Tolulope Awosika; John N Theodore; Hesham M Zakaria; Ann Liu; Timothy F Witham; Nicholas Theodore
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2021-07-14

4.  Development and Human Factors Considerations for Extended Reality Applications in Medicine: The Enhanced ELectrophysiology Visualization and Interaction System (ĒLVIS).

Authors:  Jennifer N Avari Silva; Mary Beth Privitera; Michael K Southworth; Jonathan R Silva
Journal:  Virtual Augment Mixed Real (2020)       Date:  2020-07-10

5.  Spine Surgery Supported by Augmented Reality.

Authors:  Barbara Carl; Miriam Bopp; Benjamin Saß; Mirza Pojskic; Benjamin Voellger; Christopher Nimsky
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-05-28

6.  Augmented reality navigation-guided pulmonary nodule localization in a canine model.

Authors:  Chengqiang Li; Yuyan Zheng; Ye Yuan; Hecheng Li
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2021-11

7.  Robotic Spine Surgery and Augmented Reality Systems: A State of the Art.

Authors:  Gianluca Vadalà; Sergio De Salvatore; Luca Ambrosio; Fabrizio Russo; Rocco Papalia; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2020-03-31

8.  Augmented reality-based navigation increases precision of pedicle screw insertion.

Authors:  Cyrill Dennler; Laurenz Jaberg; José Spirig; Christoph Agten; Tobias Götschi; Philipp Fürnstahl; Mazda Farshad
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 9.  XR (Extended Reality: Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality) Technology in Spine Medicine: Status Quo and Quo Vadis.

Authors:  Tadatsugu Morimoto; Takaomi Kobayashi; Hirohito Hirata; Koji Otani; Maki Sugimoto; Masatsugu Tsukamoto; Tomohito Yoshihara; Masaya Ueno; Masaaki Mawatari
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  Feasibility and Accuracy of Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Using an Augmented Reality Head Mounted Device.

Authors:  Henrik Frisk; Eliza Lindqvist; Oscar Persson; Juliane Weinzierl; Linda K Bruetzel; Paulina Cewe; Gustav Burström; Erik Edström; Adrian Elmi-Terander
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 3.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.