José Miguel Spirig1, Simon Roner2, Florentin Liebmann3, Philipp Fürnstahl3, Mazda Farshad2. 1. Spine Division, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. jose.spirig@balgrist.ch. 2. Spine Division, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Computer Assisted Research and Development Group, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Augmented reality (AR) is an emerging technology with great potential for surgical navigation through its ability to provide 3D holographic projection of otherwise hidden anatomical information. This pilot cadaver study investigated the feasibility and accuracy of one of the first holographic navigation techniques for lumbar pedicle screw placement. METHODS: Lumbar computer tomography scans (CT) of two cadaver specimens and their reconstructed 3D models were used for pedicle screw trajectory planning. Planned trajectories and 3D models were subsequently uploaded to an AR head-mounted device. Randomly, k-wires were placed either into the left or the right pedicle of a vertebra (L1-5) with or without AR-navigation (by holographic projection of the planned trajectory). CT-scans were subsequently performed to assess accuracy of both techniques. RESULTS: A total of 18 k-wires could be placed (8 navigated, 10 free hand) by two experienced spine surgeons. In two vertebrae, the AR-navigation was aborted because the registration of the preoperative plan with the intraoperative anatomy was imprecise due to a technical failure. The average differences of the screw entry points between planning and execution were 4.74 ± 2.37 mm in the freehand technique and 5.99 ± 3.60 mm in the AR-navigated technique (p = 0.39). The average deviation from the planned trajectories was 11.21° ± 7.64° in the freehand technique and 5.88° ± 3.69° in the AR-navigated technique (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates improved angular precision in one of the first AR-navigated pedicle screw placement studies worldwide. Technical shortcomings need to be eliminated before potential clinical applications.
PURPOSE: Augmented reality (AR) is an emerging technology with great potential for surgical navigation through its ability to provide 3D holographic projection of otherwise hidden anatomical information. This pilot cadaver study investigated the feasibility and accuracy of one of the first holographic navigation techniques for lumbar pedicle screw placement. METHODS: Lumbar computer tomography scans (CT) of two cadaver specimens and their reconstructed 3D models were used for pedicle screw trajectory planning. Planned trajectories and 3D models were subsequently uploaded to an AR head-mounted device. Randomly, k-wires were placed either into the left or the right pedicle of a vertebra (L1-5) with or without AR-navigation (by holographic projection of the planned trajectory). CT-scans were subsequently performed to assess accuracy of both techniques. RESULTS: A total of 18 k-wires could be placed (8 navigated, 10 free hand) by two experienced spine surgeons. In two vertebrae, the AR-navigation was aborted because the registration of the preoperative plan with the intraoperative anatomy was imprecise due to a technical failure. The average differences of the screw entry points between planning and execution were 4.74 ± 2.37 mm in the freehand technique and 5.99 ± 3.60 mm in the AR-navigated technique (p = 0.39). The average deviation from the planned trajectories was 11.21° ± 7.64° in the freehand technique and 5.88° ± 3.69° in the AR-navigated technique (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates improved angular precision in one of the first AR-navigated pedicle screw placement studies worldwide. Technical shortcomings need to be eliminated before potential clinical applications.
Authors: Alexander Mason; Renee Paulsen; Jason M Babuska; Sharad Rajpal; Sigita Burneikiene; E Lee Nelson; Alan T Villavicencio Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2013-12-20
Authors: Michael P Stauff; Brett A Freedman; Jin-Hwan Kim; Takahiko Hamasaki; S Tim Yoon; William C Hutton Journal: Spine J Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Gazanfar Rahmathulla; Eric W Nottmeier; Stephen M Pirris; H Gordon Deen; Mark A Pichelmann Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Nicolas Dea; Charles G Fisher; Juliet Batke; Jason Strelzow; Daniel Mendelsohn; Scott J Paquette; Brian K Kwon; Michael D Boyd; Marcel F S Dvorak; John T Street Journal: Spine J Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Behrus Puladi; Mark Ooms; Martin Bellgardt; Mark Cesov; Myriam Lipprandt; Stefan Raith; Florian Peters; Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich; Andreas Prescher; Frank Hölzle; Torsten Wolfgang Kuhlen; Ali Modabber Journal: JMIR Serious Games Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 3.364
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