Radiation exposure for pedicle screw placement with three different navigation system and imaging combinations in a sawbone model.

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that pedicle screw placement using navigation can potentially reduce radiation exposure of surgical personnel compared to conventional methods. Spinal navigation is based on an interaction of a navigation software and 3D imaging. The 3D image data can be acquired using different imaging modalities such as iCT and CBCT. These imaging modalities vary regarding acquisition technique and field of view. The current literature varies greatly in study design, in form of dose registration, as well as navigation systems and imaging modalities analyzed. Therefore, the aim of this study was a standardized comparison of three navigation and imaging system combinations in an experimental setting in an artificial spine model.

METHODS

In this experimental study dorsal instrumentation of the thoracolumbar spine was performed using three imaging/navigation system combinations. The system combinations applied were the iCT/Curve, cCBCT/Pulse and oCBCT/StealthStation. Referencing scans were obtained with each imaging modality and served as basis for the respective navigation system. In each group 10 artificial spine models received bilateral dorsal instrumentation from T11-S1. 2 referencing and control scans were acquired with the CBCTs, since their field of view could only depict up to five vertebrae in one scan. The field of view of the iCT enabled the depiction of T11-S1 in one scan. After instrumentation the region of interest was scanned again for evaluation of the screw position, therefore only one referencing and one control scan were obtained. Two dose meters were installed in a spine bed ventral of L1 and S1. The dose measurements in each location and in total were analyzed for each system combination. Time demand regarding screw placement was also assessed for all system combinations.

RESULTS

The mean radiation dose in the iCT group measured 1,6 ± 1,1 mGy. In the cCBCT group the mean was 3,6 ± 0,3 mGy and in the oCBCT group 10,3 ± 5,7 mGy were measured. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant (p < 0.0001) difference between the three groups. The multiple comparisions by the Kruskall-Wallis test showed no significant difference for the comparison of iCT and cCBCT (p = 0,13). Significant differences were found for the direct comparison of iCT and oCBCT (p < 0,0001), as well as cCBCT and oCBCT (p = 0,02). Statistical analysis showed that significantly (iCT vs. oCBCT p = 0,0434; cCBCT vs. oCBCT p = 0,0083) less time was needed for oCBCT based navigated pedicle screw placement compared to the other system combinations (iCT vs. cCBCT p = 0,871).

CONCLUSION

Under standardized conditions oCBCT navigation demanded twice as much radiation as the cCBCT for the same number of scans, while the radiation exposure measured for the iCT and cCBCT for one scan was comparable. Yet, time effort was significantly less for oCBCT based navigation. However, for transferability into clinical practice additional studies should follow evaluating parameters regarding feasibility and clinical outcome under standardized conditions.