Safety and accuracy of spinal instrumentation surgery in a hybrid operating room with an intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography
Although spinal instrumentation technique has undergone revolutionary progress over the past few decades, it may still carry significant surgery-related risks. The purpose of the present study was to assess the radiological accuracy of spinal screw instrumentation using a hybrid operating room (OR) and quantify the related radiation exposure. This retrospective study included 33 cases of complex spine fusion surgeries that were conducted using a hybrid OR with a flat panel detector (FPD) angiography system. Twelve cases (36.4%) were cervical, and 21 (63.6%) were thoracolumbar. The average number of spine fusion levels was 3 and 4.8, respectively, at the cervical and thoracolumbar spine levels. A FPD angiography system was used for intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to obtain multi-slice spine images. All operations were conducted under optimized radiation shielding. Entrance surface doses (ESDs) and exposure times were recorded in all cases. A total of 313 screws were placed. Satisfactory screw insertion could be achieved in all cases with safe screw placement in 97.4% and acceptable placement in 2.6%. None of the cases showed any significant anatomical violation by the screws. The radiation exposure to the patients was absolutely consistent with the desired ESD value, and that to the surgeons, under the annual dose limit. These results suggest that the hybrid OR with a FPD angiography system is helpful to achieve safe and precise spinal fusion surgery, especially in complex cases.
KeywordsCone-beam CT Hybrid operating room Radiation exposure Spinal instrumentation Surgical safety
All of the authors are sincerely grateful to Mr. Koji Yokoyama, Mr. Shohei Sasaki, Mr. Akihiko Kakimi, Mr. Toshiyo Norimasa, and Mr. Yoshinori Takao for their technical contribution to intraoperative image guidance.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval and informed consent
The authors certify that all applicable institutional and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of clinical data were adhered to for the present study. This retrospective outcome analysis of spine surgery was approved by the ethics committee of Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine.
- 3.Costa F, Tosi G, Attuati L, Cardia A, Ortolina A, Grimaldi M, Galbusera F, Fornari M (2016) Radiation exposure in spine surgery using an image-guided system based on intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography: analysis of 107 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg Spine 25:654–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Gelalis ID, Paschos NK, Pakos EE, Politis AN, Arnaoutoglou CM, Karageorgos AC, Ploumis A, Xenakis TA (2012) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 21:247–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.International Commission Radiological Protection (2008) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP Publication 103. Elsevier Ltd.Google Scholar
- 12.Japan Association of Radiological Technologists (2017) Available at http://www.jart.jp/index.html
- 15.Kobayashi K, Ando K, Ito K, Tsushima M, Morozumi M, Tanaka S, Machino M, Ota K, Ishiguro N, Imagama S (2018) Intraoperative radiation exposure in spinal scoliosis surgery for pediatric patients using the O-arm® imaging system. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2130-1
- 17.Kotani T, Akazawa T, Sakuma T, Koyama K, Nemoto T, Nawata K, Yamazaki A, Minami S (2014) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in scoliosis surgery: a comparison between conventional computed tomography-based and O-arm-based navigation techniques. Asian Spine J 8(3):331–338CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Nakashima H, Sato K, Ando T, Inoh H, Nakamura H (2009) Comparison of the percutaneous screw placement precision of isocentric C-arm 3-dimensional fluoroscopy-navigated pedicle screw implantation and conventional fluoroscopy method with minimally invasive surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:468–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.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 26:2818–2827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Schafer S, Nithiananthan S, Mirota DJ, Uneri A, Stayman JW, Zbijewski W, Schmidgunst C, Kleinszig G, Khanna AJ, Siewerdsen JH (2011) Mobile C-arm cone-beam CT for guidance of spine surgery: image quality, radiation dose, and integration with interventional guidance. Med Phys 38:4563–4574CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 40.Tabaraee E, Gibson AG, Karahalios DG, Potts EA, Mobasser JP, Burch S (2013) Intraoperative cone beam-computed tomography with navigation (O-ARM) versus conventional fluoroscopy (C-ARM): a cadaveric study comparing accuracy, efficiency, and safety for spinal instrumentation. Spine 38:1953–1958CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Urbanski W, Jurasz W, Wolanczyk M, Kulej M, Morasiewicz P, Dragan SL et al (2018) Increased radiation but no benefits in pedicle screw accuracy with navigation versus a freehand technique in scoliosis surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999.0000000000000204
- 44.Van de Kelft E, Costa F, Van der Planken D, Schils F (2012) A prospective multicenter registry on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral levels with the use of the O-arm imaging system and StealthStation navigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E1580–E1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Villard J, Ryang YM, Demetriades AK, Reinke A, Behr M, Preuss A (2014) Radiation exposure to the surgeon and the patient during posterior lumbar spinal instrumentation: a prospective randomized comparison of navigated versus non-navigated freehand techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:1004–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar