人工与机器:在胸腰椎融合手术中使用基于注册的技术进行椎弓根螺钉自动规划与人工螺钉规划的比较

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Ulf Bertram, Istvan Köveshazi, Monika Michaelis, Simon Weidert, Tobias Philip Schmidt, Christian Blume, Felix Swamy v. Zastrow, Christian-Andreas Müller, Szilard Szabo
{"title":"人工与机器:在胸腰椎融合手术中使用基于注册的技术进行椎弓根螺钉自动规划与人工螺钉规划的比较","authors":"Ulf Bertram,&nbsp;Istvan Köveshazi,&nbsp;Monika Michaelis,&nbsp;Simon Weidert,&nbsp;Tobias Philip Schmidt,&nbsp;Christian Blume,&nbsp;Felix Swamy v. Zastrow,&nbsp;Christian-Andreas Müller,&nbsp;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&amp;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":"{\"title\":\"Man versus machine: Automatic pedicle screw planning using registration-based techniques compared with manual screw planning for thoracolumbar fusion surgeries\",\"authors\":\"Ulf Bertram,&nbsp;Istvan Köveshazi,&nbsp;Monika Michaelis,&nbsp;Simon Weidert,&nbsp;Tobias Philip Schmidt,&nbsp;Christian Blume,&nbsp;Felix Swamy v. Zastrow,&nbsp;Christian-Andreas Müller,&nbsp;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&amp;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}","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

摘要

目的 本研究评估了市售脊柱规划软件在自动脊柱标记和螺钉轨迹建议方面的精确度。 方法 该软件使用椎体的自动分割和注册来生成螺钉建议。对 877 个轨迹进行了比较。四名神经外科医生评估了建议的轨迹,进行了修正,并手动规划了椎弓根螺钉。此外,还对自动识别/标记进行了评估。 结果 89% 的病例自动标记正确。92.9%的自动规划轨迹符合 G&R A + B 级标准。自动模式将规划螺钉轨迹的时间从每颗螺钉 7 秒缩短到每节椎骨 20 秒。手动模式下,不同外科医生的螺钉长度存在差异(最大分布峰值:5 毫米),而自动模式下的差异为 0 毫米。建议的椎弓根螺钉尺寸明显小于外科医生的选择(最大差异峰值在 0.5 至 3 毫米之间)。 结论 在大多数情况下,椎体的自动识别是有效的,建议的椎弓根螺钉轨迹也是可以接受的。到目前为止,它还不能替代经验丰富的外科医生的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Man versus machine: Automatic pedicle screw planning using registration-based techniques compared with manual screw planning for thoracolumbar fusion surgeries

Man versus machine: Automatic pedicle screw planning using registration-based techniques compared with manual screw planning for thoracolumbar fusion surgeries

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
12.00%
发文量
131
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信