Accuracy Assessment of Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography with Metal Artifact Reduction.
augmented reality
cone beam computed tomography
image quality
metal artifact reduction algorithm
screw accuracy
surgical navigation
Journal
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1424-8220
Titre abrégé: Sensors (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101204366
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Jun 2022
18 Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
13
05
2022
revised:
10
06
2022
accepted:
16
06
2022
entrez:
24
6
2022
pubmed:
25
6
2022
medline:
28
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms are used with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) during augmented reality surgical navigation for minimally invasive pedicle screw instrumentation. The aim of this study was to assess intra- and inter-observer reliability of pedicle screw placement and to compare the perception of baseline image quality (NoMAR) with optimized image quality (MAR). CBCT images of 24 patients operated on for degenerative spondylolisthesis using minimally invasive lumbar fusion were analyzed retrospectively. Images were treated using NoMAR and MAR by an engineer, thus creating 48 randomized files, which were then independently analyzed by 3 spine surgeons and 3 radiologists. The Gertzbein and Robins classification was used for screw accuracy rating, and an image quality scale rated the clarity of pedicle screw and bony landmark depiction. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. NoMAR and MAR led to similarly good intra-observer (ICC > 0.6) and excellent inter-observer (ICC > 0.8) assessment reliability of pedicle screw placement accuracy. The image quality scale showed more variability in individual image perception between spine surgeons and radiologists (ICC range 0.51−0.91). This study indicates that intraoperative screw positioning can be reliably assessed on CBCT for augmented reality surgical navigation when using optimized image quality. Subjective image quality was rated slightly superior for MAR compared to NoMAR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35746396
pii: s22124615
doi: 10.3390/s22124615
pmc: PMC9228786
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Clin Spine Surg. 2021 Aug 1;34(7):E415-E424
pubmed: 33560011
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Jan 1;45(1):E45-E53
pubmed: 31415457
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Apr;41 Suppl 8:S74-89
pubmed: 26825793
BMC Med Imaging. 2021 Feb 15;21(1):29
pubmed: 33588781
J Digit Imaging. 2020 Oct;33(5):1136-1143
pubmed: 32632648
Med Phys. 2010 Oct;37(10):5482-93
pubmed: 21089784
Surg Radiol Anat. 2021 Jun;43(6):843-853
pubmed: 33449140
Med Phys. 2019 Aug;46(8):3483-3495
pubmed: 31180586
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Jul 15;43(14):1018-1023
pubmed: 29215500
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Aug 1;24(15):1599-603
pubmed: 10457581
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2020 Nov;15(11):1787-1796
pubmed: 32840721
J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Oct;29(4):397-406
pubmed: 29979141
Eur Spine J. 2016 Mar;25(3):716-23
pubmed: 25702317
Phys Med Biol. 2019 Aug 21;64(16):165021
pubmed: 31287092
Spine J. 2020 Apr;20(4):629-637
pubmed: 31863933
Phys Med Biol. 2020 Aug 19;65(16):165012
pubmed: 32428891
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 May;472(5):1605-9
pubmed: 24515406
Clin Spine Surg. 2020 Jul;33(6):247-253
pubmed: 32579321
Eur Spine J. 2021 Jan;30(1):88-96
pubmed: 32462309
Eur Spine J. 2022 Feb 3;:
pubmed: 35113237
Clin Spine Surg. 2017 Jul;30(6):276-284
pubmed: 28632551
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990 Jan;15(1):11-4
pubmed: 2326693
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jun;472(6):1727-37
pubmed: 24464507