Noninvasive patient tracker mask for spinal 3D navigation: does the required large-volume 3D scan involve a considerably increased radiation exposure?

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Center–University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany; and
  • 2 Department of Neurosurgery, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, Switzerland
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

Intraoperative 3D imaging and navigation is increasingly used for minimally invasive spine surgery. A novel, noninvasive patient tracker that is adhered as a mask on the skin for 3D navigation necessitates a larger intraoperative 3D image set for appropriate referencing. This enlarged 3D image data set can be acquired by a state-of-the-art 3D C-arm device that is equipped with a large flat-panel detector. However, the presumably associated higher radiation exposure to the patient has essentially not yet been investigated and is therefore the objective of this study.

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively included if a thoracolumbar 3D scan was performed intraoperatively between 2016 and 2019 using a 3D C-arm with a large 30 × 30–cm flat-panel detector (3D scan volume 4096 cm3) or a 3D C-arm with a smaller 20 × 20–cm flat-panel detector (3D scan volume 2097 cm3), and the dose area product was available for the 3D scan. Additionally, the fluoroscopy time and the number of fluoroscopic images per 3D scan, as well as the BMI of the patients, were recorded.

RESULTS

The authors compared 62 intraoperative thoracolumbar 3D scans using the 3D C-arm with a large flat-panel detector and 12 3D scans using the 3D C-arm with a small flat-panel detector. Overall, the 3D C-arm with a large flat-panel detector required more fluoroscopic images per scan (mean 389.0 ± 8.4 vs 117.0 ± 4.6, p < 0.0001), leading to a significantly higher dose area product (mean 1028.6 ± 767.9 vs 457.1 ± 118.9 cGy × cm2, p = 0.0044).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel, noninvasive patient tracker mask facilitates intraoperative 3D navigation while eliminating the need for an additional skin incision with detachment of the autochthonous muscles. However, the use of this patient tracker mask requires a larger intraoperative 3D image data set for accurate registration, resulting in a 2.25 times higher radiation exposure to the patient. The use of the patient tracker mask should thus be based on an individual decision, especially taking into considering the radiation exposure and extent of instrumentation.

ABBREVIATIONS CBCT = cone-beam CT; iCT = intraoperative CT.

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 Jan-Helge Klingler: University of Freiburg, Germany. jan-helge.klingler@uniklinik-freiburg.de.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online August 28, 2020; DOI: 10.3171/2020.5.SPINE20530.

Disclosures The clinic had a cooperation agreement for system development with Ziehm Imaging and Stryker. Dr. Hubbe has received honoraria and travel expenditures for lectures from Ziehm Imaging.

  • 1

    Klingler JH, Sircar R, Scheiwe C, Comparative study of C-arms for intraoperative 3-dimensional imaging and navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery part I: applicability and image quality. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(6):276284.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Vaishnav AS, Merrill RK, Sandhu H, A review of techniques, time demand, radiation exposure, and outcomes of skin-anchored intraoperative 3D navigation in minimally invasive lumbar spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(8):E465E476.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Shaw JC, Routt MLC Jr, Gary JL. Intra-operative multi-dimensional fluoroscopy of guidepin placement prior to iliosacral screw fixation for posterior pelvic ring injuries and sacroiliac dislocation: an early case series. Int Orthop. 2017;41(10):21712177.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Malham GM, Wells-Quinn T. What should my hospital buy next?-Guidelines for the acquisition and application of imaging, navigation, and robotics for spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2019;5(1):155165.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Malham GM, Parker RM. Early experience of placing image-guided minimally invasive pedicle screws without K-wires or bone-anchored trackers. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(4):357363.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Klingler JH, Sircar R, Scheiwe C, Comparative study of C-arms for intraoperative 3-dimensional imaging and navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery part II: radiation exposure. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(6):E669E676.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Nayar G, Blizzard DJ, Wang TY, Pedicle screw placement accuracy using ultra-low radiation imaging with image enhancement versus conventional fluoroscopy in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an internally randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(2):186193.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Fiebich M, Weber D. Digital volume tomography: Dedicated scanner and cone beam CT with C-arm systems. Article in German. Radiologe. 2018;58(3):194201.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Kim S, Sopko D, Toncheva G, Radiation dose from 3D rotational X-ray imaging: organ and effective dose with conversion factors. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2012;150(1):5054.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Schauer DA, Linton OW. NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States, medical exposure—are we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists? Health Phys. 2009;97(1):15.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Perisinakis K, Theocharopoulos N, Damilakis J, Estimation of patient dose and associated radiogenic risks from fluoroscopically guided pedicle screw insertion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(14):15551560.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Giordano BD, Baumhauer JF, Morgan TL, Rechtine GR. Cervical spine imaging using standard C-arm fluoroscopy: patient and surgeon exposure to ionizing radiation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(18):19701976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Sarwahi V, Payares M, Wendolowski S, Low-dose radiation 3D intraoperative imaging: how low can we go? An O-arm, CT scan, cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(22):E1311E1317.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Saß B, Bopp M, Nimsky C, Carl B. Navigated 3-dimensional intraoperative ultrasound for spine surgery. World Neurosurg. 2019;131:e155e169.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Kraus M, Fischer E, Gebhard F, Richter PH. Image quality and effective dose of a robotic flat panel 3D C-arm vs computed tomography. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(4):743750.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Naseri Y, Hubbe U, Scholz C, Radiation exposure of a new mobile 3D C-arm with large flat-panel detector for intraoperative imaging and navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery. BMC Med Imaging. In press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 224 224 78
Full Text Views 19 19 8
PDF Downloads 11 11 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0