Percutaneous placement of lumbar pedicle screws via intraoperative CT image–based augmented reality–guided technology

Restricted access

OBJECTIVE

The authors aimed to assess, in a bone-agar experimental setting, the feasibility and accuracy of percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placements using an intraoperative CT image–based augmented reality (AR)–guided method compared to placements using a radiograph-guided method. They also compared two AR hologram alignment methods.

METHODS

Twelve lumbar spine sawbones were completely embedded in hardened opaque agar, and a cubic marker was fixed on each phantom. After intraoperative CT, a 3D model of each phantom was generated, and a specialized application was deployed into an AR headset (Microsoft HoloLens). One hundred twenty pedicle screws, simulated by Kirschner wires (K-wires), were placed by two experienced surgeons, who each placed a total of 60 screws: 20 placed with a radiograph-guided technique, 20 with an AR technique in which the hologram was manually aligned, and 20 with an AR technique in which the hologram was automatically aligned. For each K-wire, the insertion path was expanded to a 6.5-mm diameter to simulate a lumbar pedicle screw. CT imaging of each phantom was performed after all K-wire placements, and the operative time required for each K-wire placement was recorded. An independent radiologist rated all images of K-wire placements. Outcomes were classified as grade I (no pedicle perforation), grade II (screw perforation of the cortex by up to 2 mm), or grade III (screw perforation of the cortex by > 2 mm). In a clinical situation, placements scored as grade I or II would be acceptable and safe for patients.

RESULTS

Among all screw placements, 75 (94%) of 80 AR-guided placements and 40 (100%) of 40 radiograph-guided placements were acceptable (i.e., grade I or II; p = 0.106). Radiograph-guided placements had more grade I outcomes than the AR-guided method (p < 0.0001). The accuracy of the two AR alignment methods (p = 0.526) was not statistically significantly different, and neither was it different between the AR and radiograph groups (p < 0.0001). AR-guided placements required less time than the radiograph-guided placements (mean ± standard deviation, 131.76 ± 24.57 vs 181.43 ± 15.82 seconds, p < 0.0001). Placements performed using the automatic-alignment method required less time than those using the manual-alignment method (124.20 ± 23.80 vs 139.33 ± 23.21 seconds, p = 0.0081).

CONCLUSIONS

In bone-agar experimental settings, AR-guided percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placements were acceptable and more efficient than radiograph-guided placements. In a comparison of the two AR-guided placements, the automatic-alignment method was as accurate as the manual method but more efficient. Because of some limitations, the AR-guided system cannot be recommended in a clinical setting until there is significant improvement of this technology.

ABBREVIATIONS AR = augmented reality; K-wire = Kirschner wire; MIS = minimally invasive spine; STL = Standard Tessellation Language.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Yue Zhou: The Second Affiliated Xinqiao Hospital of Army Medical University, Chongqing, China. happyzhou@vip.163.com.INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online December 20, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2019.10.SPINE19969.Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Agten CADennler CRosskopf ABJaberg LPfirrmann CWAFarshad M: Augmented reality-guided lumbar facet joint injections. Invest Radiol 53:4954982018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Azuma RT: A survey of augmented reality. Presence (Camb Mass) 6:3553851997

  • 3

    Bichlmeier CHeining SMFeuerstein MNavab N: The virtual mirror: a new interaction paradigm for augmented reality environments. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28:149815102009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Chatzopoulos DBermejo CHuang ZHui P: Mobile augmented reality survey: from where we are to where we go. IEEE Access 5:691769502017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Foley KTHolly LTSchwender JD: Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 (15 Suppl):S26S352003

  • 6

    Foley KTLefkowitz MA: Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:4995172002

  • 7

    Fritz JU-Thainual PUngi TFlammang AJCho NBFichtinger G: Augmented reality visualization with image overlay for MRI-guided intervention: accuracy for lumbar spinal procedures with a 1.5-T MRI system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:W266W2732012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Fritz JU-Thainual PUngi TFlammang AJFichtinger GIordachita II: Augmented reality visualization with use of image overlay technology for MR imaging-guided interventions: assessment of performance in cadaveric shoulder and hip arthrography at 1.5 T. Radiology 265:2542592012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    George DCKrag MHJohnson CCVan Hal MEHaugh LDGrobler LJ: Hole preparation techniques for transpedicle screws. Effect on pull-out strength from human cadaveric vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16:1811841991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Hohl JBHolt DCBrodke DS: Minimally invasive spine surgery complications with implant placement and fixation in Phillips FLieberman IPolly D (eds): Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. Berlin: Springer2014 pp 431444

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Huang ZHui PPeylo CChatzopoulos D: Mobile augmented reality survey: a bottom-up approach. arXiv:1309.4413 2013

  • 12

    Innocenzi GBistazzoni SD’Ercole MCardarelli GRicciardi F: Does navigation improve pedicle screw placement accuracy? Comparison between navigated and non-navigated percutaneous and open fixations. Acta Neurochir Suppl 124:2892952017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    McAfee PCPhillips FMAndersson GBuvenenadran AKim CWLauryssen C: Minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (26 Suppl):S271S2732010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Ofiram EPolly DWGilbert TJ JrChoma TJ: Is it safer to place pedicle screws in the lower thoracic spine than in the upper lumbar spine? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:49542007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Park YHa JW: Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:5375432007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Perez-Cruet MJFessler RGPerin NI: Review: complications of minimally invasive spinal surgery. Neurosurgery 51 (5 Suppl):S26S362002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Rasouli MRRahimi-Movaghar VShokraneh FMoradi-Lakeh MChou R: Minimally invasive discectomy versus microdiscectomy/open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (9):CD0103282014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Tajsic TPatel KFarmer RMannion RJTrivedi RA: Spinal navigation for minimally invasive thoracic and lumbosacral spine fixation: implications for radiation exposure, operative time, and accuracy of pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J 27:191819242018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Tormenti MJMaserati MBBonfield CMOkonkwo DOKanter AS: Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus 28(3):E72010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Virk SSYu E: The top 50 articles on minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:5135192017

TrendMD
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 854 854 616
Full Text Views 53 53 44
PDF Downloads 44 44 35
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar