| Literature DB >> 32647106 |
Yue Gu1, Qingqiang Yao2, Yan Xu2, Huikang Zhang3, Peiran Wei1, Liming Wang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This was a prospective comparative study of mixed reality (MR) technology assisted lumbar pedicle screws placement and traditional lumbar pedicle screws placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty cases of lumbar pedicle screws placement were randomly divided into 2 groups: 25 cases with MR technology in group A, and 25 cases without MR technology in group B. All patients had their scores on the Oswestry disability index (ODI) of low back pain and the visual analog scale (VAS) of the affected lower limb recorded at pre-operation. Blood loss, operative duration, success rate of first penetration by tap, and number of times C-arm fluoroscopy was performed were recorded at intraoperation. The postoperative drainage was recorded. The ODI of low back pain and VAS of the affected lower limb were recorded at 1, 3, and 6 months after operation. RESULTS Group A had less bleeding, shorter operation time, higher success rate of first penetration by tap, and fewer times using C-arm fluoroscopy at intraoperation (P<0.05). There was significant difference in ODI scores and VAS scores at 1 mouth after operation (P<0.05). The postoperative drainage of group A was less than group B (P<0.05). The implantation accuracy of group A was higher than group B (P<0.05). The postoperative recovery rate of low back pain of group A was faster than group B (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS The safety of spinal surgery and implantation accuracy of pedicle screw fixation system could be increased by MR technology.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32647106 PMCID: PMC7370579 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.924982
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1The ethics.
Preoperative general information.
| Gender | Age (years) | Low back pain ODI score (%) | VAS score of lower extremity of affected side (score) | Number of lumbar spondylolisthesis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | |||||
| Group A | 11 | 14 | 44.32±3.78 | 50.35±9.27 | 7.16±1.40 | 7 |
| Group B | 13 | 12 | 45.56±3.93 | 51.75±9.18 | 7.12±1.26 | 9 |
| χ2/ | 0.3205 | 1.1354 | 0.5366 | 0.1062 | 0.3682 | |
| 0.5713 | 0.2618 | 0.5941 | 0.9159 | 0.5446 | ||
ODI – Oswestry disability index; VAS – visual analog scale.
Figure 2Computed tomography scan results.
Figure 3The spinal image after 3-dimensional reconstruction.
Figure 4Design and simulation of screw implantation trajectory after 3-dimensional reconstruction
Figure 5Trajectory of screw implantation after soft tissue addition (this track only represents the direction and position of screw feeding, not the screw itself.)
Figure 6The preoperative 3-dimensional reconstructed image was presented in the surgeon’s glasses HoloLens II intraoperatively, which accurately imaged the corresponding part of the body.
Comparison of intraoperative conditions.
| Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | Operation time (min) | Success rate of tapping first penetration (%) | Number of intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopy irradiation (times) | Total postoperative drainage volume (mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 382.27±95.75 | 96.00±11.93 | 95.07 | 5.76±0.83 | 104.09±12.95 |
| Group B | 449.76±91.69 | 120.09±13.14 | 88.40 | 6.60±1.29 | 125.24±11.08 |
| χ2/ | 2.5454 | 6.7868 | 4.1230 | 2.7359 | 6.2018 |
| 0.0142 | <0.001 | 0.0423 | 0.009155 | <0.001 |
Comparison of efficacy.
| Low back pain ODI score | VAS scores of lower limbs on the affected side | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | Group A | Group B | |
| Preoperative | 50.35±9.27 | 51.75±9.18 | 7.16±1.40 | 7.12±1.26 |
| One month after surgery | 34.44±8.50 | 43.03±9.30 | 3.48±1.00 | 3.88±1.20 |
| 6.3230 | 3.4243 | 10.0558 | 9.2710 | |
| <0.001 | 0.0013 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
ODI – Oswestry disability index; VAS – visual analog scale.
Effect of screw placement.
| Total number of screws (PCS) | Classification criteria for Gertzbein-Robbins | Excellent and good rate (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class I | Level II and above | |||
| Group A | 142 | 136 | 6 | 95.77 |
| Group B | 138 | 123 | 15 | 89.13 |
| χ2 value | 4.4534 | |||
| 0.0348 | ||||
χ2 value and P value are the comparison of excellent and good rates between the 2 groups.
Postoperative lumbago ODI score (%).
| 1 month after surgery | 3 months after surgery | 6 months after surgery | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 34.44±8.50 | 16.94±5.15 | 17.15±5.21 |
| Group B | 43.03±9.30 | 20.91±4.31 | 16.19±4.75 |
| 3.4086 | 2.9506 | 0.68195 | |
| <0.001 | 0.004951 | 0.4986 |
VAS scores of lower limb on the affected side after operation.
| 1 month after surgery | 3 months after surgery | 6 months after surgery | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 3.48±1.00 | 1.92±0.49 | 1.24±0.83 |
| Group B | 3.88±1.20 | 2.08±0.86 | 1.12±0.66 |
| T value | 1.2769 | 0.80539 | 0.5636 |
| P values | 0.208 | 0.4256 | 0.5758 |