Accuracy of Augmented Reality Navigation Versus Freehand Pedicle Screw Placement.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Spine Pub Date : 2026-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-11 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005594
Giuseppe Loggia, Aron Alakmeh, Fedan Avrumova, Franziska C S Altorfer, Jiaqi Zhu, Frank P Cammisa, Andrew Sama, Mazda Farshad, Darren R Lebl
{"title":"Accuracy of Augmented Reality Navigation Versus Freehand Pedicle Screw Placement.","authors":"Giuseppe Loggia, Aron Alakmeh, Fedan Avrumova, Franziska C S Altorfer, Jiaqi Zhu, Frank P Cammisa, Andrew Sama, Mazda Farshad, Darren R Lebl","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the accuracy of augmented reality (AR)-guided and freehand (FH) pedicle screw placement in the lumbosacral spine using computed tomography (CT)-based Gertzbein-Robbins (GRS) grading, and to assess demographic and surgical factors associated with accuracy.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate pedicle screw placement is essential for safe and effective spinal fusion. AR navigation has emerged as an alternative to conventional FH techniques, with potential advantages in accuracy, efficiency, and ergonomics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>All patients who underwent pedicle screws placement from L1 to S1 using either AR navigation or conventional FH technique, with available postoperative CT imaging for screw accuracy assessment, were analyzed. Demographic and surgical characteristics were compared between both cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 202 patients were analyzed, comprising 1109 pedicle screws placed (AR: n = 548; FH: n = 561). The proportion of clinically acceptable screws (GRS grade A or B) was significantly higher in the AR group compared with the FH group (99.3% vs . 96.4%; P = 0.013). The rate of clinically unacceptable breaches (GRS grade C-E) was significantly lower in the AR group than in the FH group (0.7% vs . 3.6%; P = 0.013). Level-specific directional summary showed that the highest number of breaches in the AR group occurred at L4, predominantly lateral (n = 24), while in the FH group, breaches were most common at L5 and primarily medial (n = 22). Demographic and surgical characteristics demonstrated no significant differences between the cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AR-guided navigation was associated with significantly higher pedicle screw placement accuracy compared with conventional FH technique. As the largest study to date directly comparing these approaches, this analysis reinforces the notion that AR may offer more consistent accuracy in screw placement. Further prospective studies are needed to determine its long-term clinical implications.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":"1524-1532"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005594","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To compare the accuracy of augmented reality (AR)-guided and freehand (FH) pedicle screw placement in the lumbosacral spine using computed tomography (CT)-based Gertzbein-Robbins (GRS) grading, and to assess demographic and surgical factors associated with accuracy.

Background: Accurate pedicle screw placement is essential for safe and effective spinal fusion. AR navigation has emerged as an alternative to conventional FH techniques, with potential advantages in accuracy, efficiency, and ergonomics.

Materials and methods: All patients who underwent pedicle screws placement from L1 to S1 using either AR navigation or conventional FH technique, with available postoperative CT imaging for screw accuracy assessment, were analyzed. Demographic and surgical characteristics were compared between both cohorts.

Results: A total of 202 patients were analyzed, comprising 1109 pedicle screws placed (AR: n = 548; FH: n = 561). The proportion of clinically acceptable screws (GRS grade A or B) was significantly higher in the AR group compared with the FH group (99.3% vs . 96.4%; P = 0.013). The rate of clinically unacceptable breaches (GRS grade C-E) was significantly lower in the AR group than in the FH group (0.7% vs . 3.6%; P = 0.013). Level-specific directional summary showed that the highest number of breaches in the AR group occurred at L4, predominantly lateral (n = 24), while in the FH group, breaches were most common at L5 and primarily medial (n = 22). Demographic and surgical characteristics demonstrated no significant differences between the cohorts.

Conclusions: AR-guided navigation was associated with significantly higher pedicle screw placement accuracy compared with conventional FH technique. As the largest study to date directly comparing these approaches, this analysis reinforces the notion that AR may offer more consistent accuracy in screw placement. Further prospective studies are needed to determine its long-term clinical implications.

增强现实导航与徒手放置椎弓根螺钉的准确性。
研究设计:回顾性队列研究。目的:利用基于计算机断层扫描(CT)的Gertzbein-Robbins (GRS)分级,比较增强现实(AR)引导和徒手(FH)椎弓根螺钉在腰骶棘内置入的准确性,并评估与准确性相关的人口统计学和外科因素。背景资料总结:准确的椎弓根螺钉放置对安全有效的脊柱融合至关重要。AR导航已经成为传统FH技术的替代方案,在精度、效率和人体工程学方面具有潜在的优势。方法:分析所有使用AR导航或传统FH技术从L1到S1置入椎弓根螺钉的患者,并利用可用的术后CT图像评估螺钉的准确性。比较两组患者的人口学和手术特征。结果:共分析202例患者,其中置入椎弓根螺钉1109枚(AR: n=548; FH: n=561)。AR组临床可接受螺钉(GRS A级或B级)比例显著高于FH组(99.3% vs 96.4%; P=0.013)。临床不可接受的违规率(GRS分级C-E)在AR组显著低于FH组(0.7% vs. 3.6%; P=0.013)。水平特异性方向总结显示,AR组中最多的骨折发生在L4,主要是外侧(n=24),而在FH组中,骨折最常见于L5,主要是内侧(n=22)。人口学和手术特征在队列之间没有显着差异。结论:与传统FH技术相比,ar引导导航可显著提高椎弓根螺钉放置精度。作为迄今为止最大规模的直接比较这些方法的研究,该分析强化了AR可能提供更一致的螺钉放置准确性的概念。需要进一步的前瞻性研究来确定其长期临床意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书