nach oben

International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery

Erschienen in:

31.08.2018 | Original Article

Standard navigation versus intraoperative computed tomography navigation in upper cervical spine trauma

verfasst von: Barbara Carl, Miriam Bopp, Mirza Pojskic, Benjamin Voellger, Christopher Nimsky

Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery | Ausgabe 1/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

In surgery of C1–C2 fractures, standard navigation for screw placement based on preoperative image data was compared with intraoperative imaging guidance applying intraoperative computed tomography (iCT) with a special focus on accuracy of screw placement, workflow, and radiation exposure.

Methods

A single surgeon series of 16 consecutive patients with C1–C2 trauma was retrospectively analyzed. Seven patients were operated with standard navigation; preoperative image data were registered by a 20-point surface-matching process for each vertebra. Nine patients were operated with iCT guidance, allowing automatic navigation registration. Screw placement was examined and graded with either iCT or postoperative CT. Dose length product of CT and dose area products of fluoroscopy scans were assessed; effective radiation doses were estimated based on conversion factors. Radiation doses of intraoperative and postoperative X-ray and/or CT diagnostics for each group were summarized to compare the total effective doses.

Results

A total number of 72 screws were placed, 26 in the standard navigation group including 24 screws in C1 and C2, and 46 screws in the iCT group including 34 screws in C1 and C2. 15.38% (n = 4) of the C2 screws showed a grade 1 deviation and 3.8% (n = 1) a grade 2 deviation applying standard navigation. There was no misplacement of screws in the iCT group. Mean operating time in the standard navigation group was 186.57 min versus 157.11 min in the iCT group, while the mean summarized effective dose was 1.129 mSv in the standard navigation and 2.129 mSv in the iCT group.

Conclusion

iCT navigated surgery can lead to higher accuracy and shorter operating time compared to standard navigated operations. iCT is a safe and straightforward procedure allowing reduction in radiation exposure of the medical staff, while modified scan protocols resulted in a radiation exposure that is lower than in standard diagnostic neck CT.

Harms J, Melcher RP (2001) Posterior C1–C2 fusion with polyaxial screw and rod fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(22):2467–2471CrossRef

Vergara P, Bal JS, Hickman Casey AT, Crockard HA, Choi D (2012) C1–C2 posterior fixation: are 4 screws better than 2? Neurosurgery 71(1 Suppl Operative):86–95. https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0b013e318243180a CrossRefPubMed

Rahmathulla G, Nottmeier EW, Pirris SM, Deen HG, Pichelmann MA (2014) Intraoperative image-guided spinal navigation: technical pitfalls and their avoidance. Neurosurg Focus 36(3):E3. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.1.FOCUS13516 CrossRefPubMed

Uehara M, Takahashi J, Hirabayashi H, Hashidate H, Ogihara N, Mukaiyama K, Kato H (2012) Computer-assisted C1–C2 Transarticular Screw Fixation “Magerl Technique” for Atlantoaxial Instability. Asian Spine J 6(3):168–177. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2012.6.3.168 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Yang Y, Wang F, Han S, Wang Y, Dong J, Li L, Zhou D (2015) Isocentric C-arm three-dimensional navigation versus conventional C-arm assisted C1–C2 transarticular screw fixation for atlantoaxial instability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(8):1083–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2249-z CrossRefPubMed

Yang YL, Zhou DS, He JL (2013) Comparison of isocentric C-arm 3-dimensional navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screw placement for atlantoaxial instability. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(3):127–134. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31823d36b6 CrossRefPubMed

Barsa P, Frohlich R, Benes V 3rd, Suchomel P (2014) Intraoperative portable CT-scanner based spinal navigation: a feasibility and safety study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 156(9):1807–1812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-014-2184-8 CrossRef

Czabanka M, Haemmerli J, Hecht N, Foehre B, Arden K, Liebig T, Woitzik J, Vajkoczy P (2017) Spinal navigation for posterior instrumentation of C1-2 instability using a mobile intraoperative CT scanner. J Neurosurg Spine 27(3):268–275. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.1.SPINE16859 CrossRefPubMed

Hecht N, Kamphuis M, Czabanka M, Hamm B, Konig S, Woitzik J, Synowitz M, Vajkoczy P (2016) Accuracy and workflow of navigated spinal instrumentation with the mobile AIRO(^®) CT scanner. Eur Spine J 25(3):716–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3814-4 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Navarro-Ramirez R, Lang G, Lian X, Berlin C, Janssen I, Jada A, Alimi M, Hartl R (2017) Total navigation in spine surgery; a concise guide to eliminate fluoroscopy using a portable intraoperative computed tomography 3-dimensional navigation system. World Neurosurg 100:325–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.01.025 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Laine T, Lund T, Ylikoski M, Lohikoski J, Schlenzka D (2000) Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with and without computer assistance: a randomised controlled clinical study in 100 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J 9(3):235–240CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

The 2007 Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103 (2007). Ann ICRP 37(2–4):1–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003

13.

Manninen AL, Isokangas JM, Karttunen A, Siniluoto T, Nieminen MT (2012) A comparison of radiation exposure between diagnostic CTA and DSA examinations of cerebral and cervicocerebral vessels. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33(11):2038–2042. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3123 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Huda W, Magill D, He W (2011) CT effective dose per dose length product using ICRP 103 weighting factors. Med Phys 38(3):1261–1265. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3544350 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Huda W, Ogden KM, Khorasani MR (2008) Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT. Radiology 248(3):995–1003. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2483071964 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Kraus M, von dem Berge S, Perl M, Krischak G, Weckbach S (2014) Accuracy of screw placement and radiation dose in navigated dorsal instrumentation of the cervical spine: a prospective cohort study. Int J Med Robot 10(2):223–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1555 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Tjardes T, Shafizadeh S, Rixen D, Paffrath T, Bouillon B, Steinhausen ES, Baethis H (2010) Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions. Eur Spine J 19(1):25–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1091-9 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Singh PK, Garg K, Sawarkar D, Agarwal D, Satyarthi G, Gupta D, Sinha S, Kale S, Sharma B (2014) CT-guided C2 pedicle screw placement for treatment of unstable hangman’s fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000451 CrossRef

19.

Smith JD, Jack MM, Harn NR, Bertsch JR, Arnold PM (2016) Screw placement accuracy and outcomes following o-arm-navigated atlantoaxial fusion: a feasibility study. Global Spine J 6(4):344–349. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1563723 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ling JM, Tiruchelvarayan R, Seow WT, Ng HB (2013) Surgical treatment of adult and pediatric C1/C2 subluxation with intraoperative computed tomography guidance. Surg Neurol Int 4(Suppl 2):S109–S117. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.109454 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Villas C, Arriagada C, Zubieta JL (1999) Preliminary CT study of C1–C2 rotational mobility in normal subjects. Eur Spine J 8(3):223–228CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Dvorak J, Penning L, Hayek J, Panjabi MM, Grob D, Zehnder R (1988) Functional diagnostics of the cervical spine using computer tomography. Neuroradiology 30(2):132–137CrossRefPubMed

23.

Monckeberg JE, Tome CV, Matias A, Alonso A, Vasquez J, Zubieta JL (2009) CT scan study of atlantoaxial rotatory mobility in asymptomatic adult subjects: a basis for better understanding C1–C2 rotatory fixation and subluxation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(12):1292–1295. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181a4e4e9 CrossRef

24.

White AA 3rd, Panjabi MM (1978) The clinical biomechanics of the occipitoatlantoaxial complex. Orthop Clin North Am 9(4):867–878PubMed

25.

Rampersaud YR, Foley KT, Shen AC, Williams S, Solomito M (2000) Radiation exposure to the spine surgeon during fluoroscopically assisted pedicle screw insertion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(20):2637–2645CrossRef

26.

Dewey P, Incoll I (1998) Evaluation of thyroid shields for reduction of radiation exposure to orthopaedic surgeons. Aust N Z J Surg 68(9):635–636CrossRefPubMed

27.

Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 363(9406):345–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15433-0 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII, Phase I, Letter Report (1998). Washington (DC). https://doi.org/10.17226/9526

29.

Gebhard FT, Kraus MD, Schneider E, Liener UC, Kinzl L, Arand M (2006) Does computer-assisted spine surgery reduce intraoperative radiation doses? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(17):2024–2027. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000229250.69369.ac (discussion 2028) CrossRef

30.

Hadelsberg UP, Harel R (2016) Hazards of ionizing radiation and its impact on spine surgery. World Neurosurg 92:353–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.05.025 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Mendelsohn D, Strelzow J, Dea N, Ford NL, Batke J, Pennington A, Yang K, Ailon T, Boyd M, Dvorak M, Kwon B, Paquette S, Fisher C, Street J (2016) Patient and surgeon radiation exposure during spinal instrumentation using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation. Spine J 16(3):343–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.11.020 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, Shah ND, Nasir K, Einstein AJ, Nallamothu BK (2009) Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 361(9):849–857. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0901249 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248(1):254–263. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481071451 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Greffier J, Pereira FR, Viala P, Macri F, Beregi JP, Larbi A (2017) Interventional spine procedures under CT guidance: How to reduce patient radiation dose without compromising the successful outcome of the procedure? Phys Med 35:88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.02.016 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Pireau N, Cordemans V, Banse X, Irda N, Lichtherte S, Kaminski L (2017) Radiation dose reduction in thoracic and lumbar spine instrumentation using navigation based on an intraoperative cone beam CT imaging system: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Eur Spine J 26(11):2818–2827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5229-x CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Standard navigation versus intraoperative computed tomography navigation in upper cervical spine trauma
verfasst von: Barbara Carl
Miriam Bopp
Mirza Pojskic
Benjamin Voellger
Christopher Nimsky
Publikationsdatum: 31.08.2018
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery / Ausgabe 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1861-6410
Elektronische ISSN: 1861-6429
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1853-0

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

18.04.2024 | Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Standard navigation versus intraoperative computed tomography navigation in upper cervical spine trauma

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Quantitative Angiografie könnte IVUS-Alternative darstellen

Update Radiologie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Influence of fiber connectivity in simulations of cardiac biomechanics

Combining MRF-based deformable registration and deep binary 3D-CNN descriptors for large lung motion estimation in COPD patients

Traditional machine learning for limited angle tomography

Robotic surgical rehearsal on patient-specific 3D-printed skull models for stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG)

3D modelling of non-intestinal colorectal anatomy

Automatic bone segmentation in whole-body CT images

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Quantitative Angiografie könnte IVUS-Alternative darstellen

Update Radiologie