Literature DB >> 30974238

Evaluation of surgeon and patient radiation exposure by imaging technology in patients undergoing thoracolumbar fusion: systematic review of the literature.

Zach Pennington1, Ethan Cottrill1, Erick M Westbroek1, Matthew L Goodwin1, Daniel Lubelski1, A Karim Ahmed1, Daniel M Sciubba2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Minimally invasive spine techniques are becoming increasingly popular owing to their ability to reduce operative morbidity and recovery times. The downside to these new procedures is their need for intraoperative radiation guidance.
PURPOSE: To establish which technologies provide the lowest radiation exposure to both patient and surgeon. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: Systematic review OUTCOME MEASURES: Average intraoperative radiation exposure (in mSv per screw placed) to surgeon and patient. Average fluoroscopy time per screw placed.
METHODS: We reviewed the available English medical literature to identify all articles reporting patient and/or surgeon radiation exposure in patients undergoing image-guided thoracolumbar instrumentation. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed for studies providing radiation exposure or fluoroscopy use per screw placed to determine which navigation modality was associated with the lowest intraoperative radiation exposure. Values on meta-analysis were reported as mean ± standard deviation.
RESULTS: We identified 4956 unique articles, of which 85 met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Forty-one articles were included in the meta-analysis. Patient radiation exposure per screw placed for each modality was: conventional fluoroscopy without navigation (0.26±0.38 mSv), conventional fluoroscopy with pre-operative CT-based navigation (0.027±0.010 mSv), intraoperative CT-based navigation (1.20±0.91 mSv), and robot-assisted instrumentation (0.04±0.30 mSv). Values for fluoroscopy used per screw were: conventional fluoroscopy without navigation (11.1±9.0 seconds), conventional fluoroscopy with navigation (7.20±3.93 s), 3D fluoroscopy (16.2±9.6 s), intraoperative CT-based navigation (19.96±17.09 s), and robot-assistance (20.07±17.22 s). Surgeon dose per screw: conventional fluoroscopy without navigation (6.0±7.9 × 10-3 mSv), conventional fluoroscopy with navigation (1.8±2.5 × 10-3 mSv), 3D Fluoroscopy (0.3±1.9 × 10-3 mSv), intraoperative CT-based navigation (0±0 mSv), and robot-assisted instrumentation (2.0±4.0 × 10-3 mSv).
CONCLUSION: All image guidance modalities are associated with surgeon radiation exposures well below current safety limits. Intraoperative CT-based (iCT) navigation produces the lowest radiation exposure to surgeon albeit at the cost of increased radiation exposure to the patient relative to conventional fluoroscopy-based methods.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fluoroscopy; Image-guided surgery; Instrumented fusion; Intraoperative CT; Minimally invasive surgery; Radiation exposure

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30974238     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  14 in total

Review 1.  New spinal robotic technologies.

Authors:  Bowen Jiang; Tej D Azad; Ethan Cottrill; Corinna C Zygourakis; Alex M Zhu; Neil Crawford; Nicholas Theodore
Journal:  Front Med       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 4.592

2.  Effect of Instrument Navigation on C-arm Radiation and Time during Spinal Procedures: A Clinical Evaluation.

Authors:  Timothy Y Wang; Farah Hamouda; Vikram A Mehta; Eric W Sankey; Chester Yarbrough; Robert Lark; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-06-30

3.  Multimodal Applications of 3D-Navigation in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Impacts on Precision, Accuracy, Complications, and Radiation Exposure.

Authors:  Arvind G Kulkarni; Pritem A Rajamani; Sandeep Tapashetti; Tushar Sathish Kunder
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-07-14

4.  Intraoperative imaging and navigated spinopelvic instrumentation: S2-alar-iliac screws combined with tricortical S1 pedicle screw fixation.

Authors:  Tarik Alp Sargut; Nils Hecht; Ran Xu; Georg Bohner; Marcus Czabanka; Julia Stein; Marcus Richter; Simon Bayerl; Johannes Woitzik; Peter Vajkoczy
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 2.721

5.  Comparative Radiographic Analyses and Clinical Outcomes Between O-Arm Navigated and Fluoroscopic-Guided Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Weerasak Singhatanadgige; Phattareeya Pholprajug; Kittisak Songthong; Wicharn Yingsakmongkol; Chanonta Triganjananun; Vit Kotheeranurak; Worawat Limthongkul
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-02-17

6.  Image Quality and Dose Comparison of 3 Mobile Intraoperative Three-Dimensional Imaging Systems in Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Norah Foster; Christopher Shaffrey; Avery Buchholz; Raymond Turner; Lexie Zidanyue Yang; Donna Niedzwiecki; Allen Goode
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.210

7.  The safety and accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw internal fixation for spine disease: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Weishang Li; Gaoyu Li; Wenting Chen; Lin Cong
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 5.853

8.  Navigated robotic assistance results in improved screw accuracy and positive clinical outcomes: an evaluation of the first 54 cases.

Authors:  Carlo Alberto Benech; Rosa Perez; Franco Benech; Samantha L Greeley; Neil Crawford; Charles Ledonio
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-08-08

Review 9.  Intraoperative risks of radiation exposure for the surgeon and patient.

Authors:  Nathaniel W Jenkins; James M Parrish; Evan D Sheha; Kern Singh
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-01

10.  A real-time 3D electromagnetic navigation system for percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in traumatic thoraco-lumbar fractures: implications for efficiency, fluoroscopic time, and accuracy compared with those of conventional fluoroscopic guidance.

Authors:  Yawei Yao; Xiang Jiang; Tanjun Wei; Zhipeng Yao; Boyu Wu; Feng Xu; Chengjie Xiong
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-07-31       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.