Tag: computer-assisted surgery

Posted on

High-Accuracy Augmented Reality Guidance for Intracranial Drain Placement Using a Standalone Head-Worn Navigation System

Neurosurgery 96:1217–1226, 2025

A standalone augmented reality (AR) headset navigation system was clinically validated for external ventricular drain (EVD) placement, demonstrating improved accuracy, higher first-attempt success, and reduced complications compared to freehand technique, supporting AR as a safe, effective, and ergonomic alternative for neurosurgical procedures.

• A standalone head-worn augmented reality (AR) navigation system was developed for external ventricular drain (EVD) placement.

• A prospective clinical pilot study compared AR-guided EVD placement to freehand technique in emergency/ICU settings.

• AR guidance achieved 100% functional first-attempt placements, significantly higher optimal placement rates, and lower complication and revision rates than freehand.

• Placement quality was evaluated with an extended modified Kakarla scale and all AR placements were functional on the first attempt.

• The AR system used high-accuracy inside-out infrared tracking and real-time 3D anatomical overlays for planning and guidance.

• Complications in the AR group were fewer and less severe, with errors attributed to hardware misuse rather than the AR guidance itself.

• Surgeons reported good acceptance and ease of use of the AR system, with minimal workflow disruption.

• A multicenter randomized controlled trial is planned to further validate these findings.

Posted on

Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery

J Neurosurg Spine 30:615–622, 2019

The object of this study was to compare the safety and accuracy of pedicle screw placement using the TiRobot system versus conventional fluoroscopy in thoracolumbar spinal surgery.

METHODS Patients with degenerative or traumatic thoracolumbar spinal disorders requiring spinal instrumentation were randomly assigned to either the TiRobot-assisted group (RG) or the freehand fluoroscopy-assisted group (FG) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of screw placement according to the Gertzbein-Robbins scale; grades A and B (pedicle breach < 2 mm) were considered clinically acceptable. In the RG, discrepancies between the planned and actual screw placements were measured by merging postoperative CT images with the trajectory planning images. Secondary outcome parameters included proximal facet joint violation, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to freehand approach in the RG, postoperative hospital stay, and radiation exposure.

RESULTS A total of 1116 pedicle screws were implanted in 234 patients (119 in the FG, and 115 in the RG). In the RG, 95.3% of the screws were perfectly positioned (grade A); the remaining screws were graded B (3.4%), C (0.9%), and D (0.4%). In the FG, 86.1% screws were perfectly positioned (grade A); the remaining screws were graded B (7.4%), C (4.6%), D (1.4%), and E (0.5%). The proportion of clinically acceptable screws was significantly greater in the RG than in the FG (p < 0.01). In the RG, the mean deviation was 1.5 ± 0.8 mm for each screw. The most common direction of screw deviation was lateral in the RG and medial in the FG. Two misplaced screws in the FG required revision surgery, whereas no revision was required in the RG. None of the screws in the RG violated the proximal facet joint, whereas 12 screws (2.1%) in the FG violated the proximal facet joint (p < 0.01). The RG had significantly less blood loss (186.0 ± 255.3 ml) than the FG (217.0 ± 174.3 ml; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of surgical time and postoperative hospital stay. The mean cumulative radiation time was 81.5 ± 38.6 seconds in the RG and 71.5 ± 44.2 seconds in the FG (p = 0.07). Surgeon radiation exposure was significantly less in the RG (21.7 ± 11.5 μSv) than in the FG (70.5 ± 42.0 μSv; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS TiRobot-guided pedicle screw placement is safe and useful in thoracolumbar spinal surgery. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02890043 (clinicaltrials.gov)

 

Posted on

Unskilled unawareness and the learning curve in robotic spine surgery

SpineAssist™ robot system

Acta Neurochir (2015) 157:1819–1823

Robotic assistance for the placement of pedicle screws has been established as a safe technique. Nonetheless rare instances of screw misplacement have been reported.The aim of the present retrospective study is to assess whether experience and time affect the accuracy of screws placed with the help of the SpineAssist™ robot system.

Methods Postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans of 258 patients requiring thoracolumbar pedicle screw instrumentation from 2008 to 2013 were reviewed. Overall, 13 surgeons performed the surgeries. A pedicle breach of >3 mm was graded as a misplacement. Surgeons were dichotomised into an early and experienced period in increments of five surgeries.

Results In 258 surgeries, 1,265 pedicle screws were placed with the aid of the robot system. Overall, 1,217 screws (96.2 %) were graded as acceptable. When displayed by surgeon, the development of percent misplacement rates peaked between 5 and 25 surgeries in 12 of 13 surgeons. The overall misplacement rate in the first five surgeries was 2.4%(6/245). The misplacement rate rose to 6.3 % between 11 and 15 surgeries (10/158; p=0.20), and reached a significant peak between 16 and 20 surgeries with a rate of 7.1 % (8/112; p= 0.03). Afterwards, misplacement rates declined.

Conclusions A major peak in screw inaccuracies occurred between cases 10 and 20, and a second, smaller one at about 40 surgeries. One potential explanation could be a transition from decreased supervision (unskilled but aware) to increased confidence of a surgeon (unskilled but unaware) who adopts this new technique prior to mastering it (skilled). We therefore advocate ensuring competent supervision for new surgeons at least during the first 25 procedures of robotic spine surgery to optimise the accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screws.

Posted on

Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine


Robot-assisted spine surgery

J Neurosurg Spine 20:636–643, 2014

Recent years have been marked by efforts to improve the quality and safety of pedicle screw placement in spinal instrumentation. The aim of the present study is to compare the accuracy of the SpineAssist robot system with conventional fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement.

Methods. Ninety-five patients suffering from degenerative disease and requiring elective lumbar instrumentation were included in the study. The robot cohort (Group I; 55 patients, 244 screws) consisted of an initial open robot-assisted subgroup (Subgroup IA; 17 patients, 83 screws) and a percutaneous cohort (Subgroup IB, 38 patients, 161 screws). In these groups, pedicle screws were placed under robotic guidance and lateral fluoroscopic control. In the fluoroscopy-guided cohort (Group II; 40 patients, 163 screws) screws were inserted using anatomical landmarks and lateral fluoroscopic guidance. The primary outcome measure was accuracy of screw placement on the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (Grade A to E and R [revised]). Secondary parameters were duration of surgery, blood loss, cumulative morphine, and length of stay.

Results. In the robot group (Group I), a perfect trajectory (A) was observed in 204 screws (83.6%). The remaining screws were graded B (n = 19 [7.8%]), C (n = 9 [3.7%]), D (n = 4 [1.6%]), E (n = 2 [0.8%]), and R ( n = 6 [2.5%]). In the fluoroscopy-guided group (Group II), a completely intrapedicular course graded A was found in 79.8% (n = 130). The remaining screws were graded B (n = 12 [7.4%]), C (n = 10 [6.1%]), D (n = 6 [3.7%]), and E (n = 5 [3.1%]). The comparison of “clinically acceptable” (that is, A and B screws) was neither different between groups (I vs II [p = 0.19]) nor subgroups (Subgroup IA vs IB [p = 0.81]; Subgroup IA vs Group II [p = 0.53]; Subgroup IB vs Group II [p = 0.20]). Blood loss was lower in the robot-assisted group than in the fluoroscopy-guided group, while duration of surgery, length of stay, and cumulative morphine dose were not statistically different.

Conclusions. Robot-guided pedicle screw placement is a safe and useful tool for assisting spine surgeons in degenerative spine cases. Nonetheless, technical difficulties remain and fluoroscopy backup is advocated.

Posted on

Novel augmented reality–assisted percutaneous vertebroplasty

A novel 3D guidance system using augmented reality for percutaneous vertebroplasty

J Neurosurg Spine 19:492–501, 2013

Augmented reality (AR) is an imaging technology by which virtual objects are overlaid onto images of real objects captured in real time by a tracking camera. This study aimed to introduce a novel AR guidance system called virtual protractor with augmented reality (VIPAR) to visualize a needle trajectory in 3D space during percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP). The AR system used for this study comprised a head-mount display (HMD) with a tracking camera and a marker sheet. An augmented scene was created by overlaying the preoperatively generated needle trajectory path onto a marker detected on the patient using AR software, thereby providing the surgeon with augmented views in real time through the HMD. The accuracy of the system was evaluated by using a computer-generated simulation model in a spine phantom and also evaluated clinically in 5 patients.

In the 40 spine phantom trials, the error of the insertion angle (EIA), defined as the difference between the attempted angle and the insertion angle, was evaluated using 3D CT scanning. Computed tomography analysis of the 40 spine phantom trials showed that the EIA in the axial plane significantly improved when VIPAR was used compared with when it was not used (0.96° ± 0.61° vs 4.34° ± 2.36°, respectively). The same held true for EIA in the sagittal plane (0.61° ± 0.70° vs 2.55° ± 1.93°, respectively). In the clinical evaluation of the AR system, 5 patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures underwent VIPARguided PVP from October 2011 to May 2012. The postoperative EIA was evaluated using CT.

The clinical results of the 5 patients showed that the EIA in all 10 needle insertions was 2.09° ± 1.3° in the axial plane and 1.98° ± 1.8° in the sagittal plane. There was no pedicle breach or leakage of polymethylmethacrylate.

VIPAR was successfully used to assist in needle insertion during PVP by providing the surgeon with an ideal insertion point and needle trajectory through the HMD. The findings indicate that AR guidance technology can become a useful assistive device during spine surgeries requiring percutaneous procedures.

Proudly powered by WordPress