Use of augmented reality for image-guided spine procedures

Abstract

Purpose

Because of its ability to superimpose imaging data on a patient, while anchoring the user’s view to the immediate surroundings, augmented reality (AR) has the potential to dramatically improve the accuracy and reduce the time required for preoperative planning and performance of minimally invasive spine surgeries and procedures. Described and reported herein is the direct clinical application of AR navigation on a series of common percutaneous image-guided spine procedures.

Materials and methods

AR, including a “virtual needle” (VN) asset, was used to guide and navigate a total of 18 procedures performed on 10 patients. Comparative control data were generated using a phantom model (n = 32). These data are used to determine the accuracy of AR for federal drug administration submissions. Optical codes were implemented to allow automatic and real-time registration. A manual process was used when the use of optical codes was not available. Target error, distance to the target and target size were measured for both phantom and clinical groups. Mean errors between the two groups were compared.

Results

Target error between the control and clinical data sets showed no significant difference. Moreover, the distance to the target site and the target size had no effect on target acquisition.

Conclusions

This data set suggests that AR navigation, utilizing a VN, is an emerging, accurate, valuable additive method for surgical and procedural planning for percutaneous image-guided spinal procedures and has potential to be applied to a broad range of clinical and surgical applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Basil G, Wang M (2019) Trends in minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg 5(Suppl 1):S108–S114. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.04.17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Gibby J, Swenson S, Cvetko S, Rao R, Javan R (2019) Head-mounted display augmented reality to guide pedicle screw placement utilizing computed tomography. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 14(3):525–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1814-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Qian L et al (2017) Comparison of optical see-through head-mounted displays for surgical interventions with object-anchored 2D-display. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12(6):901–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-017-1564-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Moosburner S et al (2019) Real world usability analysis of two augmented reality headsets in visceral surgery. Artif Organs 43(7):694–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.13396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gregory T, Gregory J, Sledge J, Allard R, Mir O (2018) Surgery guided by mixed reality: presentation of a proof of concept. Acta Ortho 89(5):480–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1506974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Meulstee J et al (2019) Toward holographic-guided surgery. Surg Innov 26(1):86–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350618799552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Aaskov J et al (2019) X-ray vision: the accuracy and repeatability of a technology that allows clinicians to see spinal X-rays superimposed on a person's back. PeerJ 7:e6333. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6333

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Incekara F, Smits M, Dirven C, Vincent A (2018) Clinical feasibility of a wearable mixed-reality device in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 118:e422–e427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Mitsuno D, Ueda K, Hirota Y, Ogino M (2019) Effective application of mixed reality device HoloLens: simple manual alignment of surgical field and holograms. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(2):647–651. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005215

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Moreta-Martinez R et al (2018) Augmented reality in computer-assisted interventions based on patient-specific 3D printed reference. Healthc Technol Lett 5(5):162–166. https://doi.org/10.1049/htl.2018.5072

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Agten CA et al (2018) Augmented reality-guided lumbar facet joint injections. Invest Radiol 53(8):495–498. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Liebmann F et al (2019) Pedicle screw navigation using surface digitization on the microsoft HoloLens. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 14(7):1157–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-019-01973-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Pratt P et al (2018) Through the HoloLens looking glass: augmented reality for extremity reconstruction surgery using 3D vascular models with perforating vessels. Eur Radiol Exp 2(1):2–017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-017-0033-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Li Y et al (2018) A wearable mixed-reality holographic computer for guiding external ventricular drain insertion at the bedside. J Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.4.JNS18124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Auloge P et al (2019) Augmented reality and artificial intelligence-based navigation during percutaneous vertebroplasty: a pilot randomised clinical trial. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06054-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fritz J et al (2012) Augmented reality visualization with use of image overlay technology for MR imaging-guided interventions: assessment of performance in cadaveric shoulder and hip arthrography at 1.5 T. Radiology 265(1):254–259. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112640

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Weintraub M et al (2019) Virtual and augmented reality vascular access on a patient specific 3D printed haptic simulator proof of principle applications of training vascular access using OpenSight and HoloLens. eposter presented at the meeting of the Society of Interventional Radiologists, Mar 23–28, Austin, Texas, USA

  18. 18.

    Dietrich T et al (2019) Fluoroscopy-guided versus CT-guided lumbar steroid injections: comparison of radiation exposure and outcomes. Radiology 290(3):752–759. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Cohen S et al (2019) Radiation dose practice audit of 6,234 fluoroscopically-guided spinal injections. Pain Phys 22(2):E119–E125

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Uppot R et al (2019) Implementing virtual and augmented reality tools for radiology education and training, communication, and clinical care. Radiology 291(3):570–580. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Racadio J (2016) Augmented reality on a C-arm system: a preclinical assessment for percutaneous needle localization. Radiology 281(1):249–255. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bertolo R et al (2019) Systematic review of augmented reality in urological interventions: the evidences of an impact on surgical outcomes are yet to come. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02711-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Contreras Lopez W, Navarro P, Crispin S (2019) Intraoperative clinical application of augmented reality in neurosurgery: a systematic review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 177:6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.11.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sutherland J et al (2019) Applying modern virtual and augmented reality technologies to medical images and models. J Digit Imaging 32(1):38–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-018-0122-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Novarad for use of their technology to perform this research and Brady Roundy for statistical analyses.

Funding

Funding of Novarad PACS software, Novarad OpenSight, and a research version of the HoloLens was provided by Novarad. No other funding was received for this publication.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan Parr.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Wendell Gibby, Steve Cvetko and Ryan Parr are employees of Novarad.

Ethical approval

“All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Blue Rock Medical Institutional Review Board) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards”.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (XLSX 14 kb)

Supplementary file 2 (XLSX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gibby, J., Cvetko, S., Javan, R. et al. Use of augmented reality for image-guided spine procedures. Eur Spine J (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06495-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Augmented reality
  • Virtual needle
  • Minimally invasive surgery
  • Spine procedures