BACKGROUND: Image-guided spinal surgery (IGSS) underwent rapid development over the past decades. The goal of IGSS is to increase patient safety and improve workflow. We present an overview of the history of IGSS, illustrate its current state, and highlight future developments. Currently, IGSS requires an image set, a tracking system, and a calibration method. IMAGING: Two-dimensional images have many disadvantages as a source for navigation. Currently, the most common navigation technique is three-dimensional (3D) navigation based on cross-sectional imaging techniques such as cone-beam computed tomography (CT) or fan-beam CT. TRACKING: Electromagnetic tracking uses an electromagnetic field to localize instruments. Optical tracking using infrared cameras has currently become one of the most common tracking methods in IGSS. CALIBRATION: The three most common techniques currently used are the point-matching registration technique, the surface-matching registration technique, and the automated registration technique. FUTURE: Augmented reality (AR) describes a computer-generated image that can be superimposed onto the real-world environment. Marking pathologies and anatomical landmarks are a few examples of many possible future applications. Additionally, AR offers a wide range of possibilities in surgical training. The latest development in IGSS is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). The presently available data on RAS are very encouraging, but further improvements of these procedures is expected. CONCLUSION: IGSS significantly evolved since its inception and is becoming a routinely used technology. In the future, IGSS will combine the advantages of "active/freehand 3D navigation" with AR and RAS and will one day find its way into all aspects of spinal surgery, not only in instrumented procedures. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
BACKGROUND: Image-guided spinal surgery (IGSS) underwent rapid development over the past decades. The goal of IGSS is to increase patient safety and improve workflow. We present an overview of the history of IGSS, illustrate its current state, and highlight future developments. Currently, IGSS requires an image set, a tracking system, and a calibration method. IMAGING: Two-dimensional images have many disadvantages as a source for navigation. Currently, the most common navigation technique is three-dimensional (3D) navigation based on cross-sectional imaging techniques such as cone-beam computed tomography (CT) or fan-beam CT. TRACKING: Electromagnetic tracking uses an electromagnetic field to localize instruments. Optical tracking using infrared cameras has currently become one of the most common tracking methods in IGSS. CALIBRATION: The three most common techniques currently used are the point-matching registration technique, the surface-matching registration technique, and the automated registration technique. FUTURE: Augmented reality (AR) describes a computer-generated image that can be superimposed onto the real-world environment. Marking pathologies and anatomical landmarks are a few examples of many possible future applications. Additionally, AR offers a wide range of possibilities in surgical training. The latest development in IGSS is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). The presently available data on RAS are very encouraging, but further improvements of these procedures is expected. CONCLUSION: IGSS significantly evolved since its inception and is becoming a routinely used technology. In the future, IGSS will combine the advantages of "active/freehand 3D navigation" with AR and RAS and will one day find its way into all aspects of spinal surgery, not only in instrumented procedures. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
Authors: Nathan J Lee; Scott L Zuckerman; Ian A Buchanan; Venkat Boddapati; Justin Mathew; Eric Leung; Paul J Park; Martin H Pham; Avery L Buchholz; Asham Khan; John Pollina; Jeffrey P Mullin; Ehsan Jazini; Colin Haines; Thomas C Schuler; Christopher R Good; Joseph M Lombardi; Ronald A Lehman Journal: Spine J Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 4.166
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: Patrick Hahn; Semih Oezdemir; Martin Komp; Athanasios Giannakopoulos; Roderich Heikenfeld; Richard Kasch; Harry Merk; Georgios Godolias; Sebastian Ruetten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Fabian Sommer; Ibrahim Hussain; Sertac Kirnaz; Jacob L Goldberg; Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez; Lynn B McGrath; Franziska A Schmidt; Branden Medary; Pravesh Shankar Gadjradj; Roger Härtl Journal: Neurospine Date: 2022-09-30
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
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