Handling Modern Medical Imaging in the High-Tech Operating Theater

  • Nael Hawi
  • Musa Citak
  • Julia Imrecke
  • Ulrich Lüke
  • Timo Stübig
  • Christian Krettek
  • Tobias Hüfner

Abstract

The operating room is a central unit in the structure of a hospital. It produces high costs, but in turn generates the highest income. The operating room is a very sensitive and thus stressful working environment and requires staff that is highly qualified. As opposed to aviation, for example, the workflow is more individualized, and especially in trauma surgery it is unpredictable because of emergencies. On top of that, un necessary stress can be caused by prolonged delays. Arthroscopy and endoscopy have become standard surgical interventions. Thanks to these techniques several other interventions have become more advanced and less invasive. Classically, arthroscopy and endoscopy are used for the bigger joints and for abdominal interventions, for example, cholecystectomy.

Keywords

Operating Room Pedicle Screw Placement Standard Surgical Intervention Posterior Pelvic Ring Room Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ansorg J, Hassan I, Fendrich V et al (2005) Quality of surgical continuing education in Germany (in German). Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130:508–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cannavo M (1992) PACS facts & fallacies. Adm Radiol 11:35–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Frund R, Techert J, Strotzer M et al (2001) The PACS concept of the University of Regensburg (in German). Rofo 173:362–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gebhard F, Kinzl L, Arand M (2000) Limits of CT-based computer navigation in spinal surgery (in German). Unfallchirurg 103:696–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Geerling J, Kendoff D, Citak M et al (2009) Intraoperative 3D imaging in calcaneal fracture care-clinical implications and decision making. J Trauma 66:768–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gelalis ID, Paschos NK, Pakos EEt al (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 21:247–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grutzner PA, Beutler T, Wendl K et al (2002) Computer-assisted screw osteosynthesis of the posterior pelvic ring. Initial experiences with an image reconstruction based opto-electronic navigation system (in German). Unfallchirurg 105:254–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grutzner PA, Rose E, Vock B et al (2004a) Intraoperative threedimensional navigation for pedicle screw placement (in German). Chirurg 75:967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grutzner PA, Zheng G, Langlotz U et al (2004b) C-arm based navigation in total hip arthroplasty-background and clinical experience. Injury 35 [Suppl 1]:A90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hofstetter R, Slomczykowski M, Sati M et al (1999) Fluoroscopy as an imaging means for computer-assisted surgical navigation. Comput Aided Surg 4:65–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hüfner T, Citak M, Imrecke J, Krettek C, Stübig T (2012) Handling modern imaging procedures in a high-tech operating room. Unfallchirurg 115:220–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hüfner T, Stubig T, Gosling T et al (2007) Cost-benefit analysis of intraoperative 3D imaging (in German). Unfallchirurg 110:14–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacob AL, Regazzoni P, Steinbrich W et al (2000) The multifunctional therapy room of the future: image guidance, interdisciplinarity, integration and impact on patient pathways. Eur Radiol 10:1763–1769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelley TC, Swank ML (2009) Role of navigation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91 [Suppl 1]:153–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kendoff D, Citak M, Gardner MJ et al (2009) Intraoperative 3D imaging: value and consequences in 248 cases. J Trauma 66:232–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kinzl L, Gebhard F, Keppler P (2004) Total knee arthroplasty – navigation as the standard (in German). Chirurg 75:976–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kondoh H, Ikezoe J, Mori Y et al (1994) PACS in Osaka University Hospital. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 43:57–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meier R, Kfuri M Jr, Geerling J et al (2005) Intraoperative threedimensional imaging with an isocentric mobile C-arm at the wrist (in German). Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 37:256–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nissen-Meyer S, Reiser M, Adelhard K (1999) PACS. Current status and possible applications (in German). Radiologe 39:255–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nolte LP, Slomczykowski MA, Berlemann U et al (2000) A new approach to computer-aided spine surgery: fluoroscopybased surgical navigation. Eur Spine J 9 [Suppl 1]:S78–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pape HC, Grotz M, Schwermann T et al (2003) The development of a model to calculate the cost of care for the severely injured – an initiative of the Trauma Register of the DGU (in German). Unfallchirurg 106:348–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stockl B, Nogler M, Rosiek R et al (2004) Navigation improves accuracy of rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:180–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stubig T, Kendoff D, Citak M et al (2009) Comparative study of different intraoperative 3-D image intensifiers in orthopedic trauma care. J Trauma 66:821–830PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nael Hawi
    • 1
  • Musa Citak
    • 1
  • Julia Imrecke
    • 1
  • Ulrich Lüke
    • 1
  • Timo Stübig
    • 1
  • Christian Krettek
    • 1
  • Tobias Hüfner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Trauma SurgeryHannover Medical SchoolHannover

Personalised recommendations