Augmented reality–assisted pedicle screw insertion: a cadaveric proof-of-concept study

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Neurosurgery and
  • 4 Neuroradiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland;
  • 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zefirin; and
  • 3 Department of Neurosurgery, Sheba Medical Center, affiliated to Sackler Medical School, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Augmented reality (AR) is a novel technology that has the potential to increase the technical feasibility, accuracy, and safety of conventional manual and robotic computer-navigated pedicle insertion methods. Visual data are directly projected to the operator’s retina and overlaid onto the surgical field, thereby removing the requirement to shift attention to a remote display. The objective of this study was to assess the comparative accuracy of AR-assisted pedicle screw insertion in comparison to conventional pedicle screw insertion methods.

METHODS

Five cadaveric male torsos were instrumented bilaterally from T6 to L5 for a total of 120 inserted pedicle screws. Postprocedural CT scans were obtained, and screw insertion accuracy was graded by 2 independent neuroradiologists using both the Gertzbein scale (GS) and a combination of that scale and the Heary classification, referred to in this paper as the Heary-Gertzbein scale (HGS). Non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing the accuracy to freehand, manual computer-navigated, and robotics-assisted computer-navigated insertion accuracy rates reported in the literature. User experience analysis was conducted via a user experience questionnaire filled out by operators after the procedures.

RESULTS

The overall screw placement accuracy achieved with the AR system was 96.7% based on the HGS and 94.6% based on the GS. Insertion accuracy was non-inferior to accuracy reported for manual computer-navigated pedicle insertion based on both the GS and the HGS scores. When compared to accuracy reported for robotics-assisted computer-navigated insertion, accuracy achieved with the AR system was found to be non-inferior when assessed with the GS, but superior when assessed with the HGS. Last, accuracy results achieved with the AR system were found to be superior to results obtained with freehand insertion based on both the HGS and the GS scores. Accuracy results were not found to be inferior in any comparison. User experience analysis yielded “excellent” usability classification.

CONCLUSIONS

AR-assisted pedicle screw insertion is a technically feasible and accurate insertion method.

ABBREVIATIONS AR-HMD = augmented reality head-mounted display; GS = Gertzbein scale; HGS = Heary-Gertzbein scale; LCL = lower control limit; LS = least squares; LSCL = lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit; NI = non-inferiority margin; PRC = percentage of reference control; UEQ = user experience questionnaire.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Camilo A. Molina: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. cmolina2@jhmi.edu.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online March 29, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2018.12.SPINE181142.

Disclosures This study was conducted in a private anatomical laboratory (Vista Labs; Baltimore, MD) and not conducted at or under the auspices of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Augmedics Ltd. provided support to conduct cadaveric experiments including financial support for cadaveric sample procurement and provision of augmented reality head-mounted display hardware and software. K2M Inc. provided support by lending instruments and implants employed in this study.

Dr. Molina is a consultant for Augmedics Ltd. Dr. Theodore is an inventor of a device manufactured by Globus Medical Inc., which was used in the Discussion section. He is entitled to royalty payments on future sales of the device and he is a paid consultant to Globus Medical Inc. This arrangement has been reviewed and approved by the Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies. Dr. Mirovsky is a member of the Advisory Board for Augmedics Ltd. Dr. Harel received payment for clinical work from Augmedics Ltd. Dr. Witham receives support of a non–study-related clinical research effort that he oversees in a grant from Eli Lilly and Co. and from the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation. Dr. Sciubba is a consultant for Medtronic, K2M, Misonix, DePuy-Synthes, Stryker, NuVasive, and Baxter.

  • 1

    Althunian TA, de Boer A, Groenwold RHH, Klungel OH: Defining the noninferiority margin and analysing noninferiority: an overview. Br J Clin Pharmacol 83:16361642, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Aoude AA, Fortin M, Figueiredo R, Jarzem P, Ouellet J, Weber MH: Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 24:9901004, 2015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Borcek AO, Suner HI, Emmez H, Kaymaz M, Aykol S, Pasaoglu A: Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar spine with conventional open technique. Turk Neurosurg 24:398402, 2014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Cho SK, Skovrlj B, Lu Y, Caridi JM, Lenke LG: The effect of increasing pedicle screw size on thoracic spinal canal dimensions: an anatomic study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E1195E1200, 2014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Elmi-Terander A, Nachabe R, Skulason H, Pedersen K, Söderman M, Racadio J, : Feasibility and accuracy of thoracolumbar minimally invasive pedicle screw placement with augmented reality navigation technology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:10181023, 2018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Elmi-Terander A, Skulason H, Söderman M, Racadio J, Homan R, Babic D, : Surgical navigation technology based on augmented reality and integrated 3D intraoperative imaging: a spine cadaveric feasibility and accuracy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:E1303E1311, 2016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Fiani B, Quadri SA, Ramakrishnan V, Berman B, Khan Y, Siddiqi J: Retrospective review on accuracy: a pilot study of robotically guided thoracolumbar/sacral pedicle screws versus fluoroscopy-guided and computerized tomography stealth-guided screws. Cureus 9:e1437, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Fichtner J, Hofmann N, Rienmüller A, Buchmann N, Gempt J, Kirschke JS, : Revision rate of misplaced pedicle screws of the thoracolumbar spine-comparison of three-dimensional fluoroscopy navigation with freehand placement: a systematic analysis and review of the literature. World Neurosurg 109:e24e32, 2018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Fomekong E, Safi SE, Raftopoulos C: Spine navigation based on 3-dimensional robotic fluoroscopy for accurate percutaneous pedicle screw placement: a prospective study of 66 consecutive cases. World Neurosurg 108:7683, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Gaines RW Jr: The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A:14581476, 2000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE: Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15:1114, 1990

  • 12

    Hahn S: Understanding noninferiority trials. Korean J Pediatr 55:403407, 2012

  • 13

    Heary RF, Bono CM, Black M: Thoracic pedicle screws: postoperative computerized tomography scanning assessment. J Neurosurg 100 (4 Suppl Spine):325331, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Keric N, Doenitz C, Haj A, Rachwal-Czyzewicz I, Renovanz M, Wesp DMA, : Evaluation of robot-guided minimally invasive implantation of 2067 pedicle screws. Neurosurg Focus 42(5):E11, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Laudato PA, Pierzchala K, Schizas C: Pedicle screw insertion accuracy using O-Arm, robotic guidance, or freehand technique: a comparative study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:E373E378, 2018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Léger É, Drouin S, Collins DL, Popa T, Kersten-Oertel M: Quantifying attention shifts in augmented reality image-guided neurosurgery. Healthc Technol Lett 4:188192, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Liu H, Chen W, Wang Z, Lin J, Meng B, Yang H: Comparison of the accuracy between robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J CARS 11:22732281, 2016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Luther N, Iorgulescu JB, Geannette C, Gebhard H, Saleh T, Tsiouris AJ, : Comparison of navigated versus non-navigated pedicle screw placement in 260 patients and 1434 screws: screw accuracy, screw size, and the complexity of surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:E298E303, 2015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Marcus HJ, Cundy TP, Nandi D, Yang GZ, Darzi A: Robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 23:291297, 2014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Molliqaj G, Schatlo B, Alaid A, Solomiichuk V, Rohde V, Schaller K, : Accuracy of robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery. Neurosurg Focus 42(5):E14, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Nicholas K, Yeatts SD, Zhao W, Ciolino J, Borg K, Durkalski V: The impact of covariate adjustment at randomization and analysis for binary outcomes: understanding differences between superiority and noninferiority trials. Stat Med 34:18341840, 2015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Nottmeier EW: A review of image-guided spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Sci 56:3547, 2012

  • 23

    Parker SL, McGirt MJ, Farber SH, Amin AG, Rick AM, Suk I, : Accuracy of free-hand pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine: analysis of 6816 consecutive screws. Neurosurgery 68:170178, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Puvanesarajah V, Liauw JA, Lo SF, Lina IA, Witham TF: Techniques and accuracy of thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement. World J Orthop 5:112123, 2014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Rahmathulla G, Nottmeier EW, Pirris SM, Deen HG, Pichelmann MA: Intraoperative image-guided spinal navigation: technical pitfalls and their avoidance. Neurosurg Focus 36(3):E3, 2014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Schrepp M, Hinderks A, Thomaschewski J: Design and evaluation of a short version of the user experience questionnaire (UEQ-S). Int J Interactive Multimedia Artif Intell 4:103108, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Sjöström L, Jacobsson O, Karlström G, Pech P, Rauschning W: CT analysis of pedicles and screw tracts after implant removal in thoracolumbar fractures. J Spinal Disord 6:225231, 1993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Takeshita K, Maruyama T, Chikuda H, Shoda N, Seichi A, Ono T, : Diameter, length, and direction of pedicle screws for scoliotic spine: analysis by multiplanar reconstruction of computed tomography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:798803, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Upendra BN, Meena D, Chowdhury B, Ahmad A, Jayaswal A: Outcome-based classification for assessment of thoracic pedicular screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:384390, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    van Dijk JD, van den Ende RP, Stramigioli S, Köchling M, Höss N: Clinical pedicle screw accuracy and deviation from planning in robot-guided spine surgery: robot-guided pedicle screw accuracy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:E986E991, 2015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Wadgave U, Khairnar MR: Parametric tests for Likert scale: for and against. Asian J Psychiatr 24:6768, 2016

  • 32

    Watanabe K, Matsumoto M, Tsuji T, Ishii K, Takaishi H, Nakamura M, : Ball tip technique for thoracic pedicle screw placement in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine 13:246252, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Xiao Y, Liu H, Li H: Integration of the forced-choice questionnaire and the Likert scale: a simulation study. Front Psychol 8:806, 2017

  • 34

    Xue Y, Hauskrecht M: Active learning of classification models with Likert-scale feedback. Proc SIAM Int Conf Data Min 2017:28–35, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 2119 2039 402
Full Text Views 258 233 34
PDF Downloads 259 207 22
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0