Gustav Burström1,2, Oscar Persson3,4, Erik Edström3,4, Adrian Elmi-Terander3,4. 1. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. gustav.burstrom@ki.se. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden. gustav.burstrom@ki.se. 3. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional spinal navigation solutions have been criticized for having a negative impact on time in the operating room and workflow. AR navigation could potentially alleviate some of these concerns while retaining the benefits of navigated spine surgery. The objective of this study is to summarize the current evidence for using augmented reality (AR) navigation in spine surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to explore the current evidence for using AR navigation in spine surgery. PubMed and Web of Science were searched from database inception to November 27, 2020, for data on the AR navigation solutions; the reported efficacy of the systems; and their impact on workflow, radiation, and cost-benefit relationships. RESULTS: In this systematic review, 28 studies were included in the final analysis. The main findings were superior workflow and non-inferior accuracy when comparing AR to free-hand (FH) or conventional surgical navigation techniques. A limited number of studies indicated decreased use of radiation. There were no studies reporting mortality, morbidity, or cost-benefit relationships. CONCLUSIONS: AR provides a meaningful addition to FH surgery and traditional navigation methods for spine surgery. However, the current evidence base is limited and prospective studies on clinical outcomes and cost-benefit relationships are needed.
BACKGROUND: Conventional spinal navigation solutions have been criticized for having a negative impact on time in the operating room and workflow. AR navigation could potentially alleviate some of these concerns while retaining the benefits of navigated spine surgery. The objective of this study is to summarize the current evidence for using augmented reality (AR) navigation in spine surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to explore the current evidence for using AR navigation in spine surgery. PubMed and Web of Science were searched from database inception to November 27, 2020, for data on the AR navigation solutions; the reported efficacy of the systems; and their impact on workflow, radiation, and cost-benefit relationships. RESULTS: In this systematic review, 28 studies were included in the final analysis. The main findings were superior workflow and non-inferior accuracy when comparing AR to free-hand (FH) or conventional surgical navigation techniques. A limited number of studies indicated decreased use of radiation. There were no studies reporting mortality, morbidity, or cost-benefit relationships. CONCLUSIONS: AR provides a meaningful addition to FH surgery and traditional navigation methods for spine surgery. However, the current evidence base is limited and prospective studies on clinical outcomes and cost-benefit relationships are needed.
Authors: Jacob T Gibby; Samuel A Swenson; Steve Cvetko; Raj Rao; Ramin Javan Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Gustav Burström; Akash Swamy; Jarich W Spliethoff; Christian Reich; Drazenko Babic; Benno H W Hendriks; Halldor Skulason; Oscar Persson; Adrian Elmi Terander; Erik Edström Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Gustav Burström; Christian Buerger; Jurgen Hoppenbrouwers; Rami Nachabe; Cristian Lorenz; Drazenko Babic; Robert Homan; John M Racadio; Michael Grass; Oscar Persson; Erik Edström; Adrian Elmi Terander Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2019-03-22
Authors: Gustav Burström; Marcin Balicki; Alexandru Patriciu; Sean Kyne; Aleksandra Popovic; Ronald Holthuizen; Robert Homan; Halldor Skulason; Oscar Persson; Erik Edström; Adrian Elmi-Terander Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Adrian Elmi-Terander; Gustav Burström; Rami Nachabé; Michael Fagerlund; Fredrik Ståhl; Anastasios Charalampidis; Erik Edström; Paul Gerdhem Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Matthew J Hagan; Thibault Remacle; Owen P Leary; Joshua Feler; Elias Shaaya; Rohaid Ali; Bryan Zheng; Ankush Bajaj; Erik Traupe; Michael Kraus; Yue Zhou; Jared S Fridley; Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Albert E Telfeian Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 3.246
Authors: Bas J J Bindels; Rozemarijn A M Weijers; Martijn S van Mourik; Robert Homan; Jan J Rongen; Maarten L J Smits; Jorrit-Jan Verlaan Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 3.421
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