Literature DB >> 35835566

Multimodal Applications of 3D-Navigation in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Impacts on Precision, Accuracy, Complications, and Radiation Exposure.

Arvind G Kulkarni1, Pritem A Rajamani2, Sandeep Tapashetti2, Tushar Sathish Kunder2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D)-navigation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is an evolving procedure. It is used not only for its accuracy of pedicle screw fixation but also for other major steps in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Multimodal outcomes of this procedure are very limited in the literature. The purpose of this study was to examine the application of 3D-navigation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).
METHODS: Patients who underwent single-level MI-TLIF using 3D-navigation between January 2017 and July 2019 were evaluated for navigation setting time, radiation exposure, volume of nucleus pulposus excised, cage placement, accuracy of pedicle screw placement, and cranial facet-joint violation.
RESULTS: One hundred and two patients with a mean age of 60.2 years met the inclusion criteria. The mean presetting time of navigation was 46.65 ± 9.45 minutes. Radiation exposure, fluoroscopy use, and fluoroscopy time were 15.54 ± 0.65 mGy, 4.43 ± 0.87 Gy.cm², and 97.6 ± 11.67 seconds, respectively. The mean amount of nucleus pulposus excised from all quadrants was quantified. The cage was centrally placed in 87 patients, with 95.4% showing a Grade 0 pedicle breach and 94.6% showing Grade 0 cranial facet-joint violation.
CONCLUSION: Registration and setting up 3D-navigation takes additional time. The amount of exposure to the patient is much less compared to routine computed tomography, and, importantly, the operating team is protected from radiation. Navigated MI-TLIF has high rates of accuracy with regard to placement of percutaneous pedicle screws and cages with the added advantage of protection of the cranial facet-joint. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
Copyright © 2022 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see http://ijssurgery.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D-navigation; lumbar spine; minimally invasive spine surgery; spinal navigation; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Year:  2022        PMID: 35835566      PMCID: PMC9421208          DOI: 10.14444/8294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  40 in total

1.  Worldwide survey on the use of navigation in spine surgery.

Authors:  Roger Härtl; Khai Sing Lam; Jeffrey Wang; Andreas Korge; Frank Kandziora; Laurent Audigé
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 2.104

2.  Effect of TLIF Cage Placement on In Vivo Kinematics.

Authors:  Alejandro D Castellvi; Shankar K Thampi; Daniel J Cook; Matthew S Yeager; Yuan Yao; Qing Zou; Donald M Whiting; Michael Y Oh; Edward R Prostko; Boyle C Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

3.  Patient and surgeon radiation exposure during spinal instrumentation using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation.

Authors:  Daniel Mendelsohn; Jason Strelzow; Nicolas Dea; Nancy L Ford; Juliet Batke; Andrew Pennington; Kaiyun Yang; Tamir Ailon; Michael Boyd; Marcel Dvorak; Brian Kwon; Scott Paquette; Charles Fisher; John Street
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 4.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications.

Authors:  Langston T Holly; James D Schwender; David P Rouben; Kevin T Foley
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 4.047

5.  Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo.

Authors:  S D Gertzbein; S E Robbins
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Evaluation of surgeon and patient radiation exposure by imaging technology in patients undergoing thoracolumbar fusion: systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Zach Pennington; Ethan Cottrill; Erick M Westbroek; Matthew L Goodwin; Daniel Lubelski; A Karim Ahmed; Daniel M Sciubba
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2019-04-09       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  Comparison of minimally invasive spine surgery using intraoperative computed tomography integrated navigation, fluoroscopy, and conventional open surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis: a prospective registry-based cohort study.

Authors:  Meng-Huang Wu; Navneet Kumar Dubey; Yen-Yao Li; Ching-Yu Lee; Chin-Chang Cheng; Chung-Sheng Shi; Tsung-Jen Huang
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 4.166

8.  Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement.

Authors:  Ranjith Babu; Jong G Park; Ankit I Mehta; Tony Shan; Peter M Grossi; Christopher R Brown; William J Richardson; Robert E Isaacs; Carlos A Bagley; Maragatha Kuchibhatla; Oren N Gottfried
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.654

9.  A Biomechanical Comparison of Shape Design and Positioning of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages.

Authors:  Garet C Comer; Anthony Behn; Shashank Ravi; Ivan Cheng
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-09-14

10.  Radiation Exposure of Patient and Operating Room Personnel by Fluoroscopy and Navigation during Spinal Surgery.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.