Advertisement

CAMISS Concept and Its Clinical Application

  • Wei Tian
  • Yajun Liu
  • Mingxing Fan
  • Jingwei Zhao
  • Peihao Jin
  • Cheng Zeng
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1093)

Abstract

This chapter intends to provide an overview of computer-assisted minimally invasive spine surgery (CAMISS) and its clinical application. Since minimally invasive spine surgery was first brought out, the concept of decreasing the damage to patient was soon become popular. However, without the proper surgical field, the spine surgery can be very dangerous. The minimally invasive concept was restricted in promotion until the computer-assisted navigation system break down the obstacles. The CAMISS technique achieves better clinical outcomes with the advantages of smaller invasion, less injury, and better recovery and also became the gold standard for spine surgery. The spatial distribution concept and the respiration-induced motion concept help in promoting the accuracy and safety of the CAMISS concept. The CAMISS concept also facilitated the developing of robotic techniques, which was considered as the future of orthopedic surgery.

Keywords

Computer-assisted minimally invasive spine surgery (CAMISS) Clinical applications Computer-assisted navigation Medical robotics Intelligent orthopedics 

References

  1. 1.
    Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchinson RH, Nelson WE (1968) The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 50:919–926CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olivier E, Beldame J, Ould Slimane M, Defives T, Duparc F (2006) Comparison between one midline cutaneous incision and two lateral incisions in the lumbar paraspinal approach by Wiltse: a cadaver study. Surg Radiol Anat 28:494–497CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hansen L, de Zee M, Rasmussen J, Andersen TB, Wong C, Simonsen EB (2006) Anatomy and biomechanics of the back muscles in the lumbar spine with reference to biomechanical modeling. Spine 31:1888–1899CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neuro-Surg 49:499–517Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim CW, Siemionow K, Anderson DG, Phillips FM (2011) The current state of minimally invasive spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:582–596PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21:2265–2270CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 35:1615–1620CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 32:537–543CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL et al (2006) Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:77–86CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boucher HH (1959) A method of spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br 41-B:248–259CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C (1986) Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedi-cle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res:7–17Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S1–S6CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM (2013) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J 22: 1741–1749CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferrick MR, Kowalski JM, Simmons ED Jr (1997) Reliability of roentgenogram evaluation of pedicle screw position. Spine 22:1249–1252; discussion 53CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ (2012) Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine 37:1548–1557CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu Y, Zhao J, Fan M, Lv Y, Liu W, Tian W (2016) Clinical factors affecting the accuracy of a CT-based active infrared navigation system. Int J Med Robot 12:568–571CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rampersaud YR, Simon DA, Foley KT (2001) Accuracy requirements for image-guided spinal pedicle screw placement. Spine 26:352–359CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2005) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: review of current trends and controversies. Spine 30:S71–S81CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S (1988) A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Bio-med Eng 35:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Santos-Munné JJPM, Stulberg SD et al (1995) A stereotactic/ robotic system for pedicle screw placement. In: Morgan K, Satava R, Sieburg H et al (eds) Proceedings of the medicine meets virtual reality III conference. IOS Press/Ohmsha, San Diego, pp 326–333Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karthik K, Colegate-Stone T, Dasgupta P, Tavakkolizadeh A, Sinha J (2015) Robotic surgery in trauma and orthopaedics: a systematic review. Bone Joint J 97-B:292–299CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jakopec M, Harris SJ, Rodriguezy Baena F, Gomes P, Cobb J, Davies BL (2001) The first clinical application of a "hands-on" robotic knee surgery system. Comput Aided Surg 6: 329–339CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lonner JH (2009) Introduction: robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 38:2PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tian W (2016) Robot-assisted posterior c1-2 transarticular screw fixation for atlantoaxial instability: a case report. Spine 41(Suppl 19):B2–B5CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tian W, Wang H, Liu YJ (2016) Robot-assisted anterior odontoid screw fixation: a case report. Orthop Surg 8:400–404CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lang Z, Tian W, Liu Y, Liu B, Yuan Q, Sun Y (2016) Minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation using intraoperative 3-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation (CAMISS technique) for hangman fracture. Spine 41:39–45CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kehlet H (2011) Fast-track surgery-an update on physiological care principles to enhance recovery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396: 585–590CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei Tian
    • 1
  • Yajun Liu
    • 1
  • Mingxing Fan
    • 1
  • Jingwei Zhao
    • 1
  • Peihao Jin
    • 1
  • Cheng Zeng
    • 1
  1. 1.Spine DepartmentBeijing Jishuitan HospitalBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations