Clinical accuracy and initial experience with augmented reality–assisted pedicle screw placement: the first 205 screws

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland;
  • | 2 Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and
  • | 3 Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Augmented reality (AR) is a novel technology which, when applied to spine surgery, offers the potential for efficient, safe, and accurate placement of spinal instrumentation. The authors report the accuracy of the first 205 pedicle screws consecutively placed at their institution by using AR assistance with a unique head-mounted display (HMD) navigation system.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of the first 28 consecutive patients who underwent AR-assisted pedicle screw placement in the thoracic, lumbar, and/or sacral spine at the authors’ institution. Clinical accuracy for each pedicle screw was graded using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale by an independent neuroradiologist working in a blinded fashion.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight consecutive patients underwent thoracic, lumbar, or sacral pedicle screw placement with AR assistance. The median age at the time of surgery was 62.5 (IQR 13.8) years and the median body mass index was 31 (IQR 8.6) kg/m2. Indications for surgery included degenerative disease (n = 12, 43%); deformity correction (n = 12, 43%); tumor (n = 3, 11%); and trauma (n = 1, 4%). The majority of patients (n = 26, 93%) presented with low-back pain, 19 (68%) patients presented with radicular leg pain, and 10 (36%) patients had documented lower extremity weakness. A total of 205 screws were consecutively placed, with 112 (55%) placed in the lumbar spine, 67 (33%) in the thoracic spine, and 26 (13%) at S1. Screw placement accuracy was 98.5% for thoracic screws, 97.8% for lumbar/S1 screws, and 98.0% overall.

CONCLUSIONS

AR depicted through a unique HMD is a novel and clinically accurate technology for the navigated insertion of pedicle screws. The authors describe the first 205 AR-assisted thoracic, lumbar, and sacral pedicle screws consecutively placed at their institution with an accuracy of 98.0% as determined by a Gertzbein-Robbins grade of A or B.

ABBREVIATIONS

AR = augmented reality; HMD = head-mounted display; S2AI = S2-alar-iliac.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Parker SL, McGirt MJ, Farber SH, Amin AG, Rick AM, et al. Accuracy of free-hand pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine: analysis of 6816 consecutive screws. Neurosurgery. 2011;68(1):170178.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Gautschi OP, Schatlo B, Schaller K, Tessitore E. Clinically relevant complications related to pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgery and their management: a literature review of 35,630 pedicle screws. Neurosurg Focus. 2011;31(4):E8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Kayacı S, Cakir T, Dolgun M, Cakir E, Bozok Ş, et al. Aortic injury by thoracic pedicle screw. When is aortic repair required? Literature review and three new cases. World Neurosurg. 2019;128:216224.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Parker SL, Amin AG, Santiago-Dieppa D, Liauw JA, Bydon A, et al. Incidence and clinical significance of vascular encroachment resulting from freehand placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine: analysis of 6816 consecutive screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2014;39(8):683687.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Kochanski RB, Lombardi JM, Laratta JL, Lehman RA, O’Toole JE. Image-guided navigation and robotics in spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2019;84(6):11791189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Perdomo-Pantoja A, Ishida W, Zygourakis C, Holmes C, Iyer RR, et al. Accuracy of current techniques for placement of pedicle screws in the spine: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 51,161 screws. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:664678.e3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Léger É, Drouin S, Collins DL, Popa T, Kersten-Oertel M. Quantifying attention shifts in augmented reality image-guided neurosurgery. Healthc Technol Lett. 2017;4(5):188192.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Fida B, Cutolo F, di Franco G, Ferrari M, Ferrari V. Augmented reality in open surgery. Updates Surg. 2018;70(3):389400.

  • 10

    Vávra P, Roman J, Zonča P, Ihnát P, Němec M, et al. Recent development of augmented reality in surgery: a review. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:4574172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Molina CA, Theodore N, Ahmed AK, Westbroek EM, Mirovsky Y, et al. Augmented reality-assisted pedicle screw insertion: a cadaveric proof-of-concept study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(1):139146.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Molina CA, Phillips FM, Colman MW, Ray WZ, Khan M, et al. A cadaveric precision and accuracy analysis of augmented reality-mediated percutaneous pedicle implant insertion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;34(2):316324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Vadalà G, De Salvatore S, Ambrosio L, Russo F, Papalia R, Denaro V. Robotic spine surgery and augmented reality systems: a state of the art. Neurospine. 2020;17(1):88100.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (PhilaPa 1976).1990;15(1):1114.

  • 15

    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).2015;40(17):E986E991.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Onen MR, Simsek M, Naderi S. Robotic spine surgery: a preliminary report. Turk Neurosurg. 2014;24(4):512518.

  • 17

    Khan A, Meyers JE, Siasios I, Pollina J. Next-generation robotic spine surgery: first report on feasibility, safety, and learning curve. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2019;17(1):6169.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Huntsman KT, Ahrendtsen LA, Riggleman JR, Ledonio CG. Robotic-assisted navigated minimally invasive pedicle screw placement in the first 100 cases at a single institution. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(1):199203.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Godzik J, Walker CT, Hartman C, de Andrada B, Morgan CD, et al. A quantitative assessment of the accuracy and reliability of robotically guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement: technique and application accuracy. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2019;17(4):389395.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Jiang B, Pennington Z, Zhu A, Matsoukas S, Ahmed AK, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement accuracy and instrumentation reliability based on a preplanned trajectory. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;33(4):519528.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Lonjon N, Chan-Seng E, Costalat V, Bonnafoux B, Vassal M, Boetto J. Robot-assisted spine surgery: feasibility study through a prospective case-matched analysis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(3):947955.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Fan M, Lui Y, Tian W. Internal fixation in upper cervical spinal surgery: a randomized controlled study. In: Tian W, Rodriguez y Baena F, eds.The 18th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery; June 6–9, 2018;Beijing, China.CAOS; 2018:51-55.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Han X, Tian W, Liu Y, Liu B, He D, et al. Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(5):615622.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Joseph JR, Smith BW, Liu X, Park P. Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    WHO. Obesity and overweight. Accessed July 13, 2021.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/

  • 26

    Dibble CF, Molina CA. Device profile of the XVision-spine (XVS) augmented-reality surgical navigation system: overview of its safety and efficacy. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2021;18(1):18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Molina CA, Dibble CF, Lo SL, Witham T, Sciubba DM. Augmented reality-mediated stereotactic navigation for execution of en bloc lumbar spondylectomy osteotomies. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;34(5):700705.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Molina CA, Sciubba DM, Greenberg JK, Khan M, Witham T. Clinical accuracy, technical precision, and workflow of the first in human use of an augmented-reality head-mounted display stereotactic navigation system for spine surgery. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2021;20(3):300309.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 362 362 362
Full Text Views 68 68 68
PDF Downloads 87 87 87
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0