Background: Three-dimensional (3D) computer-assisted navigation (CAN) has emerged as a potential alternative to 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy in the surgical placement of spinal instrumentation. Recently, 3D-CAN systems have improved significantly in their ability to provide real-time anatomical referencing while shortening the registration and set-up time. A novel system in navigation, Machine-Vision Image-Guided Surgery (MvIGS; 7D Surgical, Toronto, Canada) was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration, but its potential benefits in reducing intra-operative radiation exposure to patients and enhancing surgical accuracy of pedicle screw placement are not fully known. Purpose: We sought to conduct a prospective, randomized, clinical study comparing the 3D-MvIGS spinal navigation system and 2D-fluoroscopy for pedicle screw insertion up to 3 levels (T10-S1) and for various measures of surgical efficacy. Methods: Sixty-two eligible patients were randomized to receive spine surgery using either the 3D-MvIGS group or the conventional 2D-fluoroscopy for pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Intra-operative parameters and procedure-related unintended protocol violations were recorded. Results: Operative time and estimated blood loss were not significantly different between groups. Radiation time and exposure to patients were significantly reduced in the 3D-MvIGS group. There was no difference between groups in pedicle screw placement accuracy (2D-fluoroscopy group, 96.6%; 3D-MvIGS group, 94.2%). There were no major complications or cases that required revision surgery. Conclusion: The 3D-MvIGS navigation system performed comparably with 2D-fluoroscopy in terms of pedicle screw placement accuracy and operative time. The 3D-MvIGS showed a significant reduction in radiation exposure to patients. In more complex cases or larger cohorts, the true value of greater anatomical visualization can be elucidated.
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) computer-assisted navigation (CAN) has emerged as a potential alternative to 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy in the surgical placement of spinal instrumentation. Recently, 3D-CAN systems have improved significantly in their ability to provide real-time anatomical referencing while shortening the registration and set-up time. A novel system in navigation, Machine-Vision Image-Guided Surgery (MvIGS; 7D Surgical, Toronto, Canada) was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration, but its potential benefits in reducing intra-operative radiation exposure to patients and enhancing surgical accuracy of pedicle screw placement are not fully known. Purpose: We sought to conduct a prospective, randomized, clinical study comparing the 3D-MvIGS spinal navigation system and 2D-fluoroscopy for pedicle screw insertion up to 3 levels (T10-S1) and for various measures of surgical efficacy. Methods: Sixty-two eligible patients were randomized to receive spine surgery using either the 3D-MvIGS group or the conventional 2D-fluoroscopy for pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Intra-operative parameters and procedure-related unintended protocol violations were recorded. Results: Operative time and estimated blood loss were not significantly different between groups. Radiation time and exposure to patients were significantly reduced in the 3D-MvIGS group. There was no difference between groups in pedicle screw placement accuracy (2D-fluoroscopy group, 96.6%; 3D-MvIGS group, 94.2%). There were no major complications or cases that required revision surgery. Conclusion: The 3D-MvIGS navigation system performed comparably with 2D-fluoroscopy in terms of pedicle screw placement accuracy and operative time. The 3D-MvIGS showed a significant reduction in radiation exposure to patients. In more complex cases or larger cohorts, the true value of greater anatomical visualization can be elucidated.
Authors: Isador H Lieberman; Daisuke Togawa; Mark M Kayanja; Mary K Reinhardt; Alon Friedlander; Nachshon Knoller; Edward C Benzel Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.654
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: Alexander Perdomo-Pantoja; Wataru Ishida; Corinna Zygourakis; Christina Holmes; Rajiv R Iyer; Ethan Cottrill; Nicholas Theodore; Timothy F Witham; Sheng-Fu L Lo Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 2.104
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: G Bratschitsch; L Leitner; G Stücklschweiger; H Guss; P Sadoghi; P Puchwein; A Leithner; R Radl Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Raphael Jakubovic; Daipayan Guha; Shaurya Gupta; Michael Lu; Jamil Jivraj; Beau A Standish; Michael K Leung; Adrian Mariampillai; Kenneth Lee; Peter Siegler; Patryk Skowron; Hamza Farooq; Nhu Nguyen; Joseph Alarcon; Ryan Deorajh; Joel Ramjist; Michael Ford; Peter Howard; Nicolas Phan; Leo da Costa; Chris Heyn; Gamaliel Tan; Rajeesh George; David W Cadotte; Todd Mainprize; Albert Yee; Victor X D Yang Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Franziska A Schmidt; Hervé M Lekuya; Sertac Kirnaz; Robert Nick Hernandez; Ibrahim Hussain; Louis Chang; Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez; Christoph Wipplinger; Cameron Rawanduzy; Roger Härtl Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2021-01-12
Authors: Axel Sahovaler; Michael J Daly; Harley H L Chan; Prakash Nayak; Sharon Tzelnick; Michelle Arkhangorodsky; Jimmy Qiu; Robert Weersink; Jonathan C Irish; Peter Ferguson; Jay S Wunder Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2022-05-05