Advertisement

An intraoperative fluoroscopic method to accurately measure the post-implantation position of pedicle screws

  • Robyn Newell
  • Hooman Esfandiari
  • Carolyn Anglin
  • Renee Bernard
  • John Street
  • Antony J Hodgson
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Pedicle screw malplacement, leading to neurological symptoms, vascular injury, and premature implant loosening, is not uncommon and difficult to reliably detect intraoperatively with current techniques. We propose a new intraoperative post-placement pedicle screw position assessment system that can therefore allow surgeons to correct breaches during the procedure. Our objectives were to assess the accuracy and robustness of this proposed screw location system and to compare its performance to that of 2D planar radiography.

Methods

The proposed system uses two intraoperative X-ray shots acquired with a standard fluoroscopic C-arm and processed using 2D/3D registration methods to provide a 3D visualization of the vertebra and screw superimposed on one another. Point digitization and CT imaging of the residual screw tunnel were used to assess accuracy in five synthetic lumbar vertebral models (10 screws in total). Additionally, the accuracy was evaluated with and without correcting for image distortion and for various screw lengths, screw materials, breach directions, and vertebral levels.

Results

The proposed method is capable of localizing the implanted screws with less than 2 mm of translational error (RMSE: 0.7 and 0.8 mm for the screw head and tip, respectively) and less than \(2.3^{\circ }\) angular error (RMSE: \(1.3^{\circ }\)), with minimal change to the errors if image distortion is not corrected. Breaches and their anatomical locations were all correctly visualized and identified for a variety of screw lengths, screw materials, breach locations, and vertebral levels, demonstrating the robustness of this approach. In contrast, one breach, one non-breach, and the anatomical location of three screws were misclassified with 2D X-ray.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated an accurate and low-radiation technique for localizing pedicle screws post-implantation that requires only two X-rays. This intraoperative feedback of screw location and direction may allow the surgeon to correct malplaced screws intraoperatively, thereby reducing postoperative complications and reoperation rates.

Keywords

Pedicle screw Fluoroscopy 3D visualization Spinal surgery Feedback 

Notes

Funding

This project was supported by the Collaborative Health Research Projects (CHRP) program and the Engineers in Scrubs CREATE program, and funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC, Grant #CHRPJ 462233-2014) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, Grant #MOP-134758).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This article does not contain patient data.

References

  1. 1.
    Katonis P, Christoforakis J, Kontakis G, Aligizakis AC, Papadopoulos C, Sapkas G, Hadjipavlou A (2003) Complications and problems related to pedicle screw fixation of the spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 411:86–94.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000068761.86536.1d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aoude AA, Fortin M, Figueiredo R, Jarzem P, Ouellet J, Weber MH (2015) Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 24:990–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3853-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gautschi OP, Schatlo B, Schaller K, Tessitore E (2011) Clinically relevant complications related to pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgery and their management: a literature review of 35,630 pedicle screws. Neurosurg Focus 31:E8.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.7.focus11168 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fayazi A, Hugate R, Pennypacker J, Gelb D, Ludwig S (2004) Accuracy of computed tomography in assessing thoracic pedicle screw malposition. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:367–71.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000112049.36255.bc CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choma TJ, Denis F, Lonstein JE, Perra JH, Schwender JD, Garvey TA, Mullin WJ (2006) Stepwise methodology for plain radiographic assessment of pedicle screw placement: a comparison with computed tomography. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:547–553.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000211221.74307.57 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Learch TJ, Massie JB, Pathria MN, Ahlgren BA, Garfin SR (2004) Assessment of pedicle screw placement utilizing conventional radiography and computed tomography: a proposed systematic approach to improve accuracy of interpretation. Spine 29:767–773.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000112071.69448.A1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bandela JR, Jacob RP, Arreola M, Griglock TM, Bova F, Yang M (2013) Use of CT-based intraoperative spinal navigation: management of radiation exposure to operator, staff, and patients. World Neurosurg 79:390–394.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2011.05.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dea N, Fisher CG, Batke J, Strelzow J, Mendelsohn D, Paquette SJ, Kwon BK, Boyd MD, Dvorak MF, Street JT (2016) Economic evaluation comparing intraoperative cone beam CT-based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for the placement of spinal pedicle screws: a patient-level data cost-effectiveness analysis. Spine J 16:23–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.09.062 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watkins RG, Gupta A, Watkins RG (2010) Cost-effectiveness of image-guided spine surgery. Open Orthop J 4:228–233.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001004010228 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shin BJ, James AR, Njoku IU, Härtl R (2012) Pedicle screw navigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perforation risk for computer-navigated versus freehand insertion. J Neurosurg Spine 17:113–122.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.5.SPINE11399 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Santos ERG, Ledonio CG, Castro CA, Truong WH, Sembrano JN (2012) The accuracy of intraoperative O-arm images for the assessment of pedicle screw postion. Spine 37:E119–E125.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182257cae CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beck M, Mittlmeier T, Gierer P, Harms C, Gradl G (2009) Benefit and accuracy of intraoperative 3D-imaging after pedicle screw placement: a prospective study in stabilizing thoracolumbar fractures. Eur Spine J 18:1469–1477.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1050-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nadeau M, Batke J, Fisher C, Street J (2015) A qualitative web-based expert opinion analysis on the adoption of intraoperative CT and navigation systems in spine surgery. Glob Spine J 05:A105.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1554209 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cheh G, Riew KD (2005) Evaluation of pedicle screw placement in the deformed spine using intraoperative plain radiographs: a comparison with computerized tomography. Spine 30:2084–2088.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000178818.92105.ec CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee SH, Kim KT, Suk KS, Lee JH, Son ES, Kwack Yh, Oh HS (2012) Assessment of pedicle perforation by the cervical pedicle screw placement using plain radiographs: a comparison with computed tomography. Spine 37:280–285.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822338ad CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferrick MR, Kowalski JM, Simmons ED (1997) Reliability of roentgenogram evaluation of pedicle screw position. Spine 22:1249–52.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199706010-00016
  17. 17.
    Amato V, Giannachi L, Irace C, Corona C (2010) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the lumbosacral spine using conventional technique: computed tomography postoperative assessment in 102 consecutive patients. J Neurosurg Spine 12:306–313.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.9.SPINE09261 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 15:11–14.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199001000-00004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laine T, Mäkitalo K, Schlenzka D, Tallroth K, Poussa M, Alho A (1997) Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion: a prospective CT study in 30 low back patients. Eur Spine J 6:402–405.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01834068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nevzati E, Marbacher S, Soleman J, Perrig W, Diepers M, Abdussalam K, Fandino J (2014) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the thoracic and lumbosacral spine using conventional intraoperative fluoroscopy placement technique: a single-center analysis of 1236 consecutive screws. World Neurosurg 82:866–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.06.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Devlin VJ, Asher MA (2003) Lumbar pedicle fixation. In: Haher TR, Merola AA (eds) Surgical techniques for the spine. Thieme, New York, pp 212–217Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uneri A, Stayman JW, De Silva T, Wang AS, Kleinszig G, Vogt S, Khanna AJ, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Siewerdsen JH (2015) Known-component 3D–2D registration for image guidance and quality assurance in spine surgery pedicle screw placement. Phys Med Biol 60:8007–8024.  https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2082210 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Uneri A, De Silva T, Goerres J, Jacobson MW, Ketcha MD, Reaungamornrat S, Kleinszig G, Vogt S, Khanna AJ, Osgood GM, Wolinsky JP, Siewerdsen JH (2017) Intraoperative evaluation of device placement in spine surgery using known-component 3D–2D image registration. Phys Med Biol 62:3330–3351.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa62c5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC, Gerig G (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. NeuroImage 31:1116–1128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cignoni P, Callieri M, Corsini M, Dellepiane M, Ganovelli F, Ranzuglia G (2008) MeshLab: an open-source mesh processing tool. In: Sixth eurographics Italian chapter conference, Salerno, Italy, Eurographics Association, pp 129–136. https://doi.org/10.2312/LocalChapterEvents/ItalChap/ItalianChapConf2008/129-136
  26. 26.
    Brainerd EL, Baier DB, Gatesy SM, Hedrick TL, Metzger KA, Gilbert SL, Crisco JJ (2010) X-Ray reconstruction of moving morphology (XROMM): precision, accuracy and applications in comparative biomechanics research. J Exp Zool A Ecol Genet Physiol 313:262–279.  https://doi.org/10.1002/Jez.589 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Selvik G (1989) Roentgen stereophotogrammetry. A method for the study of the kinematics of the skeletal system. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 232:1–51.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678909154184 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chung VW (2016) Leveraging the use of existing C-arms for Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. M.Sc. thesis, University of British Columbia. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0223153
  29. 29.
    Hedrick TL (2008) Software techniques for two- and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems. Bioinspir Biomim 3(3).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3182/3/3/034001
  30. 30.
    Acker S, Li R, Murray H, John S, Banks S, Mu S, Wyss U, Deluzio K (2011) Accuracy of single-plane fluoroscopy in determining relative position and orientation of total knee replacement components. J Biomech 44:784–787.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.10.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mahfouz MR, Hoff WA, Komistek RD, Dennis DA (2003) A robust method for registration of three-dimensional knee implant models to two-dimensional fluoroscopy images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22:1561–1574.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2003.820027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rampersaud YR, Simon DA, Foley KT (2001) Accuracy requirements for image-guided spinal pedicle screw placement. Spine 26:352–359.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200102150-00010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Esfandiari H, Martinez J, Gonzalez Alvarez A, Street J, Anglin C, Hodgson AJ (2017) An automated, robust and closed form mini-RSA system for intraoperative C-arm calibration. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12:S37–S38.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-017-1588-3 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zheng G, Nolte LP, Ferguson SJ (2011) Scaled, patient-specific 3D vertebral model reconstruction based on 2D lateral fluoroscopy. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 6:351–366.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-010-0515-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Esfandiari H, Anglin C, Street J, Guy P, Hodgson A (2017) A machine learning framework for intraoperative segmentation and quality assessment of pedicle screw X-rays. In: CAOS 2017. 17th annual meeting of the International Society for Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), vol 1, pp 144–150. https://doi.org/10.29007/x9mr

Copyright information

© CARS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint HealthUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  4. 4.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  5. 5.Combined Neurosurgical and Orthopaedic Spine ProgramUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  6. 6.International Collaboration on Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia, Blusson Spinal Cord CenterVancouverCanada
  7. 7.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations