PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10986903

[Computer-assisted surgery].

F Gebhard·L Kinzl·M Arand
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The term "computer-assisted surgery" (CAS) contains a variety of different applications. Priorities in trauma surgery have navigation systems. In fact, two basically different developments can be distinguished: on one hand, the possibility of navigation, based on preoperative CT data sets; and on the other hand navigation in intraoperative C-arm images. With the present available navigation technology, it can be assumed that intraoperative CT-based tracking in the field of spinal surgery can be performed accurately, regardless of whether active or passive markers are used. Another navigation option is C-arm-based osteosynthesis of the proximal femur. An application of navigation assistance in the field of pelvic surgery is osteotomy and placement of iliosacral screws. Future developments will have to concentrate on the technical characteristics of each navigation system. Advantageous concepts of visualization may generate required information to the surgeon in a way that unconstrained interaction at the operation table is combined with simultaneous integration of virtual and computer-aided visual information. New tracking systems will allow the reconstruction of data sets after reposition of segmented bone fragments, so that also in complex pelvic fractures the implantation of screws after reposition will be possible. Computer-aided surgery is able to improve the precision of operations in trauma surgery. In future, further developments of navigation systems can be expected. This fact is supported by the establishment of faster and cheaper hardware, as well as more intelligent and user-friendly software.

Explore related subjects

Bone ScrewsCervical VertebraeComputer SystemsGeneral SurgeryHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeurosurgeryOrthopedicsOsteotomyPelvic BonesSoftwareSpinal FracturesSpineTherapy, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyWounds and InjuriesX-Ray Intensifying ScreensComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

F Gebhard, L Kinzl, M Arand. 2000. [Computer-assisted surgery].. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001130050593

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Radiologic evaluation of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation following transpedicular instrumentation of the lumbar spine.

STUDY DESIGN: The location of pedicle screws in relation to adjacent superior segment facet joints in 106 patients after lumbar spinal fusion was assessed using computed tomography and plain radiographs. OBJECTIVES: To document the incidence of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation following transpedicular instrumentation in the lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Review of the literature failed to show any documented study examining this incidence. METHODS: A total of 106 patients (212 top-level facet screws) undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery using transpedicular instrumentation between 1996 and 1999 were prospectively evaluated with a computed tomography scan and plain radiographs at 6 months following surgery. These were blindly and independently evaluated by a consultant radiologist and a spinal research fellow to document the incidence of superior segment facet joint violation. Calculation of the kappa coefficient and chi2 analysis were carried out. RESULTS: The spinal research fellow noted the incidence of facet joint violation on the computed tomography scan to be present in 20% of the screws and 32% of the patients, whereas the consultant radiologist noted this to be the case in 23% and 35%, respectively. The kappa coefficient for computed tomography scan was 0.88, whereas for the plain radiographs it was 0.39. The incidence of facet joint violation was noted to be independent of the sex, level, and diagnosis. There was also an almost uniform incidence in each of the years from 1996 to 1999. CONCLUSION: Facet joint violation occurred in just >30% of the patients and 20% of the screws in this study. This, therefore, raises the theoretical possibility of long-term deterioration in the clinical results following the use of transpedicular instrumentation.

Bone Screws↗
PubMed2003

Intraoperative computerized tomography for improved accuracy of spinal navigation in pedicle screw placement of the thoracic spine.

We report on our experiences with the use of intraoperative CT imaging in surgery of the thoracic spine and on our results of pedicle screw insertion using spinal navigation and implantable fiducial markers. For our operations we used the Tomoscan M-EG and the EasyGuideSpine (Philips Medical Systems). During the operation the patient was positioned on the mobile CT table. Following dorsal preparation, small titanium screws were implanted in the vertebrae so as to serve as fiducial markers. Image data were obtained by performing a spiral CT scan. Ventilation was suspended for the duration of the CT scan. Screw insertion as well as vertebral biopsies were performed using spinal navigation. Intraoperative CT scans were obtained to confirm the position of the implants and to assess the amount of bony decompression as well as the realignment. Since 1998, 112 patients with various disorders of the thoracic spine have been operated on using the described technique. 365 screws were inserted in the area of T1 to T12. There were 23 (6.3%) misplacements of pedicle screws. In 42 cases (11.5%) we observed a minimal lateral perforation (<2 mm) of the pedicle wall. No neurological, cardiovascular, or pulmonary injury occurred. Intraoperative CT imaging influenced surgical decisions as well as the final result of surgery. Despite the use of intraoperative imaging and accurate spinal navigation, pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine remains extremely challenging.

Bone Screws↗