Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Safety and accuracy of spinal instrumentation surgery in a hybrid operating room with an intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neurosurgical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abumi K, Shono Y, Ito M, Taneichi H, Kotani Y, Kaneda K (2000) Complications of pedicle screw fixation in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine. Spine 25:962–969

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carbone JJ, Tortolani PJ, Quartararo LG (2003) Fluoroscopically assisted pedicle screw fixation for thoracic and thoracolumbar injuries: technique and short-term complications. Spine 28:91–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 25:654–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V (1993) Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation: a selected survey of ABS members. Spine 18:2231–2239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fomekong E, Pierrard J, Raftopoulos C (2017) Comparative cohort study of percutaneous pedicle screw implantation without versus with navigation in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar disc disease. World Neurosurg 111:e410–e417

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 21:247–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Haas NA, Happel CM, Mauti M, Sahyoun C, Tebart LZ, Kececioglu D, Laser KT (2015) Substantial radiation reduction in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease interventions with a novel X-ray imaging technology. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc 6:101–109

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Houten JK, Nasser R, Baxi N (2012) Clinical assessment of percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placement using the O-arm multidimensional surgical imaging system. Neurosurgery 70(4):990–995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. International Commission Radiological Protection (2008) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP Publication 103. Elsevier Ltd.

  10. Iprenburg M, Wagner R, Godschalx A, Telfeian AE (2016) Patient radiation exposure during transforaminal lumbar endoscopic spine surgery: a prospective study. Neurosurg Focus 40:E7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ishikawa Y, Kanemura T, Yoshida G, Matsumoto A, Ito Z, Tauchi R, Muramoto A, Ohno S, Nishimura Y (2011) Intraoperative, full rotation, three-dimensional image (O-arm)-based navigation system for cervical pedicle screw insertion. J Neurosurg Spine 15(5):472–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Japan Association of Radiological Technologists (2017) Available at http://www.jart.jp/index.html

  13. Jutte PC, Castelein RM (2002) Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations. Eur Spine J 11:594–598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kleck CJ, Cullilmore I, LaFleur M, Lindley E, Rentschler ME, Burger EL, Cain CMJ, Patel VV (2016) A new 3-dimensional method for measuring precision in surgical navigation and methods to optimize navigation accuracy. Eur Spine J 25:1764–1774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

  16. Kosmopoulos V, Schizas C (2007) Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine 32:E111–E120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):331–338

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Ling JM, Dinesh SK, Pang BC, Chen MW, Lim HL, Louange DT, Yu CS, Wang CME (2014) Routine spinal navigation for thoraco-lumbar pedicle screw insertion using the O-arm three-dimensional imaging system improves placement accuracy. J Clin Neurosci 21:493–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mason A, Paulsen R, Babuska JM, Rajpal S, Burneikiene S, Nelson EL, Villavicencio AT (2014) The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. J Neurosurg Spine 20:196–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McParland BJ (1998) Entrance skin dose estimates derived from dose-area product measurements in interventional radiological procedures. Br J Radiol 71:1288–1295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mulconrey DS (2016) Fluoroscopic radiation exposure in spinal surgery: in vivo evaluation for operating room personnel. Clin Spine Surg 29:E331–E335

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 22:468–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nottmeier EW (2012) A review of image-guided spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Sci 56:35–47

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O'Donnell C, Maertens A, Bompadre V, Wagner TA, Krengel W 3rd (2014) Comparative radiation exposure using standard fluoroscopy versus cone-beam computed tomography for posterior instrumented fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 39:E850–E855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Overley SC, Cho SK, Mehta AI, Arnold PM (2017) Navigation and robotics in spinal surgery: where are we now? Neurosurgery 80:S86–S99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Oertel MF, Hobart J, Stein M, Schreiber V, Scharbrodt W (2011) Clinical and methodological precision of spinal navigation assisted by 3D intraoperative O-arm radiographic imaging. J Neurosurg Spine 14(4):532–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Patil S, Lindley EM, Burger EL, Yoshihara H, Patel VV (2012) Pedicle screw placement with O-arm and stealth navigation. Orthopedics 35:e61–e65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Park MS, Lee KM, Lee B, Min E, Kim Y, Jeon S, Huh Y, Lee K (2012) Comparison of operator radiation exposure between C-arm and O-arm fluoroscopy for orthopaedic surgery. Radiat Prot Dosim 148:431–438

    Article  Google 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 26:2818–2827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pitteloud N, Gamulin A, Barea C, Damet J, Racloz G, Sans-Merce M (2017) Radiation exposure using the O-arm® surgical imaging system. Eur Spine J 26(3):651–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rahmathulla G, Nottmeier EW, Pirris SM, Deen HG, Pichelmann MA (2014) Intraoperative image-guided spinal navigation: technical pitfalls and their avoidance. Neurosurg Focus 36:E3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Safaee MM, Oh T, Pekmezci M, Clark AJ (2018) Radiation exposure with hybrid image-guidance-based minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci 48:122–127

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 38:4563–4574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Shimokawa N, Takami T (2017) Surgical safety of cervical pedicle screw placement with computer navigation system. Neurosurg Rev 40:251–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shin MH, Hur JW, Ryu KS, Park CK (2015) Prospective comparison study between the fluoroscopy-guided and navigation coupled with O-arm-guided pedicle screw placement in the thoracic and lumbosacral spines. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(6):E347–E351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Smith HE, Welsch MD, Sasso RC, Vaccaro AR (2008) Comparison of radiation exposure in lumbar pedicle screw placement with fluoroscopy vs computer-assisted image guidance with intraoperative three-dimensional imaging. J Spinal Cord Med 31:532–537

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 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. Glob Spine J 6:344–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Silbermann J, Riese F, Allam Y, Reichert T, Koeppert H, Gutberlet M (2011) Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw placement in lumbar and sacral spine: comparison between free-hand and O-arm based navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 20(6):875–881

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 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 38:1953–1958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Theologis AA, Burch S, Pekmezci M (2016) Placement of iliosacral screws using 3D image-guided (O-Arm) technology and stealth navigation: comparison with traditional fluoroscopy. Bone Joint J 98-B:696–702

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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 19:25–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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

  43. 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–E1587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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) 39:1004–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yakoumakis E, Tsalafoutas IA, Nikolaou D, Nazos I, Koulentianos E, Proukakis C (2001) Differences in effective dose estimation from dose-area product and entrance surface dose measurements in intravenous urography. Br J Radiol 74:727–734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3 Asahi-machi, Abeno-ku, Osaka, 545-8585, Japan

    Christian A. Bohoun, Kentaro Naito, Toru Yamagata, Samantha Tamrakar, Kenji Ohata & Toshihiro Takami

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Osaka City General Hospital, 2-13-22 Miyakojima-hondori, Miyakojima-ku, Osaka, 531-0021, Japan

    Toru Yamagata

Authors
  1. Christian A. Bohoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kentaro Naito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Toru Yamagata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Samantha Tamrakar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kenji Ohata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Toshihiro Takami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toshihiro Takami.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bohoun, C.A., Naito, K., Yamagata, T. et al. Safety and accuracy of spinal instrumentation surgery in a hybrid operating room with an intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography. Neurosurg Rev 42, 417–426 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-018-0977-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-018-0977-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation