Guidelines for navigation-assisted spine surgery

Abstract

Spinal surgery is a technically demanding and challenging procedure because of the complicated anatomical structures of the spine and its proximity to several important tissues. Surgical landmarks and fluoroscopy have been used for pedicle screw insertion but are found to produce inaccuracies in placement. Improving the safety and accuracy of spinal surgery has increasingly become a clinical concern. Computer-assisted navigation is an extension and application of precision medicine in orthopaedic surgery and has significantly improved the accuracy of spinal surgery. However, no clinical guidelines have been published for this relatively new and fast-growing technique, thus potentially limiting its adoption. In accordance with the consensus of consultant specialists, literature reviews, and our local experience, these guidelines include the basic concepts of the navigation system, workflow of navigation-assisted spinal surgery, some common pitfalls, and recommended solutions. This work helps to standardize navigation-assisted spinal surgery, improve its clinical efficiency and precision, and shorten the clinical learning curve.

Keywords

guidelines / spine surgery / computer-assisted navigation

References

[1] Amiot LP, Labelle H, DeGuise JA, Sati M, Brodeur P, Rivard CH. Computer-assisted pedicle screw fixation. A feasibility study. Spine 1995; 20(10): 1208–1212

[2] Tian NF, Xu HZ. Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2009; 33(4): 895–903

[3] Tian W, Liu Y, Zheng S, Lv Y. Accuracy of lower cervical pedicle screw placement with assistance of distinct navigation systems: a human cadaveric study. Eur Spine J 2013; 22(1): 148–155

[4] Tian NF, Huang QS, Zhou P, Zhou Y, Wu RK, Lou Y, Xu HZ. Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Spine J 2011; 20(6): 846–859

[5] Shin BJ, James AR, Njoku IU, Härtl R. Pedicle screw navigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perforation risk for computer-navigated versus freehand insertion. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 17(2): 113–122

[6] Gelalis ID, Paschos NK, Pakos EE, Politis AN, Arnaoutoglou CM, Karageorgos AC, Ploumis A, Xenakis TA. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 2012; 21(2): 247–255

[7] Helm PA, Teichman R, Hartmann SL, Simon D. Spinal navigation and imaging: history, trends, and future. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2015; 34(8): 1738–1746

[8] Gebhard FT, Kraus MD, Schneider E, Liener UC, Kinzl L, Arand M. Does computer-assisted spine surgery reduce intraoperative radiation doses? Spine 2006; 31(17): 2024–2027

[9] Kraus MD, Krischak G, Keppler P, Gebhard FT, Schuetz UH. Can computer-assisted surgery reduce the effective dose for spinal fusion and sacroiliac screw insertion? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468(9): 2419–2429

[10] Bandela JR, Jacob RP, Arreola M, Griglock TM, Bova F, Yang M. Use of CT-based intraoperative spinal navigation: management of radiation exposure to operator, staff, and patients. World Neurosurg 2013; 79(2): 390–394

[11] Smith HE, Welsch MD, Sasso RC, Vaccaro AR. 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 2008; 31(5): 532–537

[12] Kim CW, Lee YP, Taylor W, Oygar A, Kim WK. Use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy to decrease radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine J 2008; 8(4): 584–590

[13] Meyer M, Farah K, Graillon T, Dufour H, Blondel B, Fuentes S. Minimal invasive percutaneous C1-C2 fixation using an intraoperative three-dimensional imaging-based navigation system on management of odontoid fractures. World Neurosurg 2020; 137: 266–271

[14] Villard J, Ryang YM, Demetriades AK, Reinke A, Behr M, Preuss A, Meyer B, Ringel F. 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 2014; 39(13): 1004–1009

[15] Yu E, Khan SN. Does less invasive spine surgery result in increased radiation exposure? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472(6): 1738–1748

[16] Klingler JH, Sircar R, Scheiwe C, Kogias E, Krüger MT, Scholz C, Hubbe U. Comparative study of C-arms for intraoperative 3-dimensional imaging and navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery part II: radiation exposure. Clin Spine Surg 2017; 30(6): E669–E676

[17] Spetzger U, Von Schilling A, Winkler G, Wahrburg J, König A. The past, present and future of minimally invasive spine surgery: a review and speculative outlook. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2013; 22(4): 227–241

[18] Virk S, Qureshi S. Navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg 2019; 5(Suppl 1): S25–S30

[19] Lang Z, Tian W, Liu Y, Liu B, Yuan Q, Sun Y. Minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation using intraoperative 3-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation (CAMISS Technique) for Hangman fracture. Spine 2016; 41(1): 39–45

[20] Tian W, Xu YF, Liu B, Liu YJ, He D, Yuan Q, Lang Z, Han XG. Computer-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion may be better than open surgery for treating degenerative lumbar disease. Clin Spine Surg 2017; 30(6): 237–242

[21] Sembrano JN, Yson SC, Theismann JJ. Computer navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2019; 12(4): 415–424

[22] Tian W. CAMISS—the trend of treatment spine injury. Chin J Orthop Trauma 2012; 14(3): 185–187

[23] Hussain I, Schmidt FA, Kirnaz S, Wipplinger C, Schwartz TH, Härtl R. MIS approaches in the cervical spine. J Spine Surg 2019; 5(Suppl 1): S74–S83

[24] Tian W, Liu Y, Fan M, Zhao J, Jin P, Zeng C. CAMISS concept and its clinical application. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018; 1093: 31–46

[25] Fichtner J, Hofmann N, Rienmüller A, Buchmann N, Gempt J, Kirschke JS, Ringel F, Meyer B, Ryang YM. Revision rate of misplaced pedicle screws of the thoracolumbar spine-comparison of three-dimensional fluoroscopy navigation with freehand placement: a systematic analysis and review of the literature. World Neurosurg 2018; 109: e24–e32

[26] Zou D, Zhang K, Ren Y, Wu Y, Yang Y, Li Y. Three-dimensional image navigation system-assisted anterior cervical screw fixation for treatment of acute odontoid fracture. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014; 7(11): 4332–4336

[27] Tian W, Weng C, Liu B, Li Q, Hu L, Li ZY, Liu YJ, Sun YZ. Posterior fixation and fusion of unstable Hangman’s fracture by using intraoperative three-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation. Eur Spine J 2012; 21(5): 863–871

[28] Arab A, Alkherayf F, Sachs A, Wai EK. Use of 3D navigation in subaxial cervical spine lateral mass screw insertion. J Neurol Surg Rep 2018; 79(1): e1–e8

[29] Hott JS, Papadopoulos SM, Theodore N, Dickman CA, Sonntag VK. Intraoperative Iso-C C-arm navigation in cervical spinal surgery: review of the first 52 cases. Spine 2004; 29(24): 2856–2860

[30] Lee HY, Lee SH, Son HK, Na JH, Lee JH, Baek OK, Shim CS. Comparison of multilevel oblique corpectomy with and without image guided navigation for multi-segmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Comput Aided Surg 2011; 16(1): 32–37

[31] Yuan Q, Zheng S, Tian W. Computer-assisted minimally invasive spine surgery for resection of ossification of the ligamentum flavum in the thoracic spine. Chin Med J (Engl) 2014; 127(11): 2043–2047

[32] Nakashima H, Sato K, Ando T, Inoh H, Nakamura H. 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 2009; 22(7): 468–472

[33] Luo W, Zhang F, Liu T, Du XL, Chen AM, Li F. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion aided with computer-assisted spinal navigation system combined with electromyography monitoring. Chin Med J (Engl) 2012; 125(22): 3947–3951

[34] Guppy KH, Chakrabarti I, Banerjee A. The use of intraoperative navigation for complex upper cervical spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 36(3): E5

[35] Tian W, Han XG, Liu B, Liu YJ, He D, Yuan Q, Xu YF. Posterior reduction and monosegmental fusion with intraoperative three-dimensional navigation system in the treatment of high-grade developmental spondylolisthesis. Chin Med J (Engl) 2015; 128(7): 865–870

[36] Ughwanogho E, Patel NM, Baldwin KD, Sampson NR, Flynn JM. Computed tomography-guided navigation of thoracic pedicle screws for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis results in more accurate placement and less screw removal. Spine 2012; 37(8): E473–E478

[37] Ruf M, Wagner R, Merk H, Harms J. Preoperative planning and computer assisted surgery in ankylosing spondylitis. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2006; 144(1): 52–57 (in German)

[38] Kalfas IH. Image-guided spinal navigation: application to spinal metastases. Neurosurg Focus 2001; 11(6): e5

[39] Nasser R, Drazin D, Nakhla J, Al-Khouja L, Brien E, Baron EM, Kim TT, Patrick Johnson J, Yassari R. Resection of spinal column tumors utilizing image-guided navigation: a multicenter analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2016; 41(2): E15

[40] Moses ZB, Mayer RR, Strickland BA, Kretzer RM, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Baaj AA. Neuronavigation in minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2013; 35(2): E12

[41] Ryang YM, Villard J, Obermüller T, Friedrich B, Wolf P, Gempt J, Ringel F, Meyer B. Learning curve of 3D fluoroscopy image-guided pedicle screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine. Spine J 2015; 15(3): 467–476

[42] Wood MJ, McMillen J. The surgical learning curve and accuracy of minimally invasive lumbar pedicle screw placement using CT based computer-assisted navigation plus continuous electromyography monitoring—a retrospective review of 627 screws in 150 patients. Int J Spine Surg 2014; 8: 27

[43] Bai YS, Zhang Y, Chen ZQ, Wang CF, Zhao YC, Shi ZC, Li M, Liu KP. Learning curve of computer-assisted navigation system in spine surgery. Chin Med J (Engl) 2010; 123(21): 2989–2994

[44] Zhao J, Liu Y, Fan M, Liu B, He D, Tian W. Comparison of the clinical accuracy between point-to-point registration and auto-registration using an active infrared navigation system. Spine 2018; 43(22): E1329–E1333

[45] Peiro-Garcia A, Teles AR, Ojaghi R, Ferri-de-Barros F. Pedicle screw instrumentation in scoliosis surgery: on site simulation data on accuracy and efficiency with different techniques. Spine 2020; 45(11): E670– E676

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

[47] Vaishnav AS, Merrill R, Sandhu H, McAnany S, Iyer S, Gang CH, Albert T, Qureshi SA. A review of techniques, time-demand, radiation exposure and outcomes of skin-anchored intra-operative 3D navigation in minimally invasive lumbar spinal surgery. Spine 2020; 45(8): E465–E476

[48] Holly LT, Foley KT. Intraoperative spinal navigation. Spine 2003; 28(15 Suppl): S54–S61

[49] 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. Patient and surgeon radiation exposure during spinal instrumentation using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation. Spine J 2016; 16(3): 343–354

[50] Rajasekaran S, Vidyadhara S, Ramesh P, Shetty AP. Randomized clinical study to compare the accuracy of navigated and non-navigated thoracic pedicle screws in deformity correction surgeries. Spine 2007; 32(2): E56–E64

[51] Härtl R, Lam KS, Wang J, Korge A, Kandziora F, Audigé L. Worldwide survey on the use of navigation in spine surgery. World Neurosurg 2013; 79(1): 162–172

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press