Augmented reality in intradural spinal tumor surgery
Microscope-based augmented reality (AR) is commonly used in cranial surgery; however, until recently, this technique was not implemented for spinal surgery. We prospectively investigated, how AR can be applied for intradural spinal tumor surgery.
For ten patients with intradural spinal tumors (ependymoma, glioma, hemangioblastoma, meningioma, and metastasis), AR was provided by head-up displays (HUDs) of operating microscopes. User-independent automatic AR registration was established by low-dose intraoperative computed tomography. The objects visualized by AR were segmented in preoperative imaging data; non-linear image registration was applied to consider spine flexibility.
In all cases, AR supported surgery by visualizing the tumor outline and other relevant surrounding structures. The overall AR registration error was 0.72 ± 0.24 mm (mean ± standard deviation), a close matching of visible tumor outline and AR visualization was observed for all cases. Registration scanning resulted in a low effective dose of 0.22 ± 0.16 mSv for cervical and 1.68 ± 0.61 mSv for thoracic lesions. The mean HUD AR usage in relation to microscope time was 51.6 ± 36.7%. The HUD was switched off and turned on again in a range of 2 to 17 times (5.7 ± 4.4 times). Independent of the status of the HUD, the AR visualization was displayed on monitors throughout surgery.
Microscope-based AR can be reliably applied to intradural spinal tumor surgery. Automatic AR registration ensures high precision and provides an intuitive visualization of the extent of the tumor and surrounding structures. Given this setting, all advanced multi-modality options of cranial AR can also be applied to spinal surgery.
KeywordsAugmented reality Head-up displays Intradural spinal tumor surgery Intraoperative computed tomography Low-dose computed tomography Spine registration
We thank J.-W. Bartsch for proofreading the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript, except that B. Carl and Ch. Nimsky have received speaker fees from Brainlab.
All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. We obtained ethics approval for prospective archiving clinical and technical data applying intraoperative imaging and navigation (study no. 99/18). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Burstrom G, Nachabe R, Persson O, Edstrom E, Terander AE (2019) Augmented and virtual reality instrument tracking for minimally invasive spine surgery: a feasibility and accuracy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003006
- 6.Carl B, Bopp M, Chehab S, Bien S, Nimsky C (2018) Preoperative 3-dimensional angiography data and intraoperative real-time vascular data integrated in microscope-based navigation by automatic patient registration applying intraoperative computed tomography. World Neurosurg 113:E414–E425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.02.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Carl B, Bopp M, Sass B, Voellger B, Nimsky C (2019) Implementation of augmented reality support in spine surgery. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05969-4
- 8.Carl B, Bopp M, Voellger B, Sass B, Nimsky C (2019) Augmented reality in transsphenoidal surgery. World Neurosurg 125:E873–E883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.202
- 10.Deib G, Johnson A, Unberath M, Yu K, Andress S, Qian L, Osgood G, Navab N, Hui F, Gailloud P (2018) Image guided percutaneous spine procedures using an optical see-through head mounted display: proof of concept and rationale. J Neurointerv Surg 10:1187–1191. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Elmi-Terander A, Burstrom G, Nachabe R, Skulason H, Pedersen K, Fagerlund M, Stahl F, Charalampidis A, Soderman M, Holmin S, Babic D, Jenniskens I, Edstrom E, Gerdhem P (2019) Pedicle screw placement using augmented reality surgical navigation with intraoperative 3D imaging: a first in-human prospective cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 44:517–525. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002876 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Fahlbusch R, Nimsky C, Ganslandt O, Steinmeier R, Buchfelder M, Huk W (1998) The Erlangen concept of image guided surgery. In: Lemke HU, Vannier MW, Inamura K, Farman A (eds) CAR'98. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, pp 583–588Google Scholar
- 14.Ganslandt O, Stadlbauer A, Fahlbusch R, Kamada K, Buslei R, Blumcke I, Moser E, Nimsky C (2005) Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging integrated into image-guided surgery: correlation to standard magnetic resonance imaging and tumor cell density. Neurosurgery 56:291. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000156782.14538.78 Google Scholar
- 16.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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Liebmann F, Roner S, von Atzigen M, Scaramuzza D, Sutter R, Snedeker J, Farshad M, Furnstahl P (2019) Pedicle screw navigation using surface digitization on the Microsoft HoloLens. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 14:1157–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-019-01973-7
- 26.Molina CA, Theodore N, Ahmed AK, Westbroek EM, Mirovsky Y, Harel R, Orru E, Khan M, Witham T, Sciubba DM (2019) Augmented reality-assisted pedicle screw insertion: a cadaveric proof-of-concept study. J Neurosurg Spine:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.12.SPINE181142
- 29.Nimsky C, Ganslandt O, Fahlbusch R (2006) Implementation of fiber tract navigation. Neurosurgery 58:292–303. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000204726.00088.6D Google Scholar
- 35.Umebayashi D, Yamamoto Y, Nakajima Y, Fukaya N, Hara M (2018) Augmented reality visualization-guided microscopic spine surgery: transvertebral anterior cervical foraminotomy and posterior foraminotomy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2:e008. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-17-00008 Google Scholar