Man versus machine: Automatic pedicle screw planning using registration-based techniques compared with manual screw planning for thoracolumbar fusion surgeries
Ulf Bertram, Istvan Köveshazi, Monika Michaelis, Simon Weidert, Tobias Philip Schmidt, Christian Blume, Felix Swamy v. Zastrow, Christian-Andreas Müller, Szilard Szabo
{"title":"Man versus machine: Automatic pedicle screw planning using registration-based techniques compared with manual screw planning for thoracolumbar fusion surgeries","authors":"Ulf Bertram, Istvan Köveshazi, Monika Michaelis, Simon Weidert, Tobias Philip Schmidt, Christian Blume, Felix Swamy v. Zastrow, Christian-Andreas Müller, Szilard Szabo","doi":"10.1002/rcs.2570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This study evaluates the precision of a commercially available spine planning software in automatic spine labelling and screw-trajectory proposal.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The software uses automatic segmentation and registration of the vertebra to generate screw proposals. 877 trajectories were compared. Four neurosurgeons assessed suggested trajectories, performed corrections, and manually planned pedicle screws. Additionally, automatic identification/labelling was evaluated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Automatic labelling was correct in 89% of the cases. 92.9% of automatically planned trajectories were in accordance with G&R grade A + B. Automatic mode reduced the time spent planning screw trajectories by 7 s per screw to 20 s per vertebra. Manual mode yielded differences in screw-length between surgeons (largest distribution peak: 5 mm), automatic in contrast at 0 mm. The size of suggested pedicle screws was significantly smaller (largest peaks in difference between 0.5 and 3 mm) than the surgeon's choice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Automatic identification of vertebrae works in most cases and suggested pedicle screw trajectories are acceptable. So far, it does not substitute for an experienced surgeon's assessment.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50311,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/rcs.2570","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rcs.2570","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
This study evaluates the precision of a commercially available spine planning software in automatic spine labelling and screw-trajectory proposal.
Methods
The software uses automatic segmentation and registration of the vertebra to generate screw proposals. 877 trajectories were compared. Four neurosurgeons assessed suggested trajectories, performed corrections, and manually planned pedicle screws. Additionally, automatic identification/labelling was evaluated.
Results
Automatic labelling was correct in 89% of the cases. 92.9% of automatically planned trajectories were in accordance with G&R grade A + B. Automatic mode reduced the time spent planning screw trajectories by 7 s per screw to 20 s per vertebra. Manual mode yielded differences in screw-length between surgeons (largest distribution peak: 5 mm), automatic in contrast at 0 mm. The size of suggested pedicle screws was significantly smaller (largest peaks in difference between 0.5 and 3 mm) than the surgeon's choice.
Conclusion
Automatic identification of vertebrae works in most cases and suggested pedicle screw trajectories are acceptable. So far, it does not substitute for an experienced surgeon's assessment.
期刊介绍：
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery provides a cross-disciplinary platform for presenting the latest developments in robotics and computer assisted technologies for medical applications. The journal publishes cutting-edge papers and expert reviews, complemented by commentaries, correspondence and conference highlights that stimulate discussion and exchange of ideas. Areas of interest include robotic surgery aids and systems, operative planning tools, medical imaging and visualisation, simulation and navigation, virtual reality, intuitive command and control systems, haptics and sensor technologies. In addition to research and surgical planning studies, the journal welcomes papers detailing clinical trials and applications of computer-assisted workflows and robotic systems in neurosurgery, urology, paediatric, orthopaedic, craniofacial, cardiovascular, thoraco-abdominal, musculoskeletal and visceral surgery. Articles providing critical analysis of clinical trials, assessment of the benefits and risks of the application of these technologies, commenting on ease of use, or addressing surgical education and training issues are also encouraged. The journal aims to foster a community that encompasses medical practitioners, researchers, and engineers and computer scientists developing robotic systems and computational tools in academic and commercial environments, with the intention of promoting and developing these exciting areas of medical technology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
