RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The accurate and safe positioning of cervical pedicle screws is crucial. While augmented reality (AR) use in spine surgery has previously demonstrated clinical utility in the thoracolumbar spine, its technical feasibility in the cervical spine remains less explored. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the precision and safety of AR-assisted pedicle screw placement in the cervical spine. STUDY DESIGN: In this experimental study, 5 cadaveric cervical spine models were instrumented from C3 to C7 by 5 different spine surgeons. The navigation accuracy and clinical screw accuracy were evaluated. METHODS: Postprocedural CT scans were evaluated for clinical accuracy by 2 independent neuroradiologists using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale. Technical precision was assessed by calculating the angular trajectory (°) and linear screw tip (mm) deviations in the axial and sagittal planes from the virtual pedicle screw position as recorded by the AR-guided platform during the procedure compared to the actual pedicle screw position derived from postprocedural imaging. RESULTS: A total of forty-one pedicle screws were placed in 5 cervical cadavers, with each of the 5 surgeons navigating at least 7 screws. Gertzbein-Robbins grade of A or B was achieved in 100% of cases. The mean values for tip and trajectory errors in the axial and sagittal planes between the virtual versus actual position of the screws was less than 3 mm and 30°, respectively (p<.05). None of the cervical screws violated the cortex by more than 2 mm or displaced neurovascular structures. CONCLUSIONS: AR-assisted cervical pedicle screw placement in cadavers demonstrated clinical accuracy comparable to existing literature values for image-guided navigation methods for the cervical spine. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides technical and clinical accuracy data that supports clinical trialing of AR-assisted subaxial cervical pedicle screw placement.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior cervical plates are commonly used to provide immediate stabilization after a variety of cervical spine procedures. It has been assumed that the ideal position for anterior cervical spine plates is centered in the horizontal plane without significant angulation and without overlap of adjacent unfused levels. Nevertheless, postoperative radiographs often demonstrate actual plate position to be lateralized, rotated, or encroaching on the adjacent disc space. There have been no reported systematic studies examining the effect of variations in plate position in a large clinical population. PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between plate position and short-term clinical outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and instrumented fusion (ACDF). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Review of prospectively collected clinical outcomes measures and radiographs. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing ACDF surgery by a group of spine surgical specialists at a single institution. OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct and calculated plain radiographic measurements, visual analog scores for neck and arm pain, and SF-36 scores. METHODS: The study population included 200 patients undergoing a one-, two-, or three-level ACDF with instrumentation. Thirteen separate direct measurements and two calculated values of plate position on immediate postoperative radiographs, including lateralization, rotation, and proximity to adjacent disc spaces, were performed in blinded fashion by 3 independent reviewers. Statistical correlation with prospectively collected patient outcomes measures, including VAS for neck and arm pain and SF-36 scores, was performed. RESULTS: In the study population, average plate position was 3.3 mm from the cephalad disc space, 6.4 mm from the caudal disc space, 3.9 degrees angulation in the frontal plate, and 26% laterally displaced from the midline. At average 18.6 months of follow-up, no significant association was identified between any plate position measure and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of anterior cervical plating by experienced spine surgeons is associated with variation in terms of plate position on postoperative radiographs. Within the range of positions analyzed in this study, no significant association was found between lateralized or rotated plates or plates placed in proximity to adjacent disc spaces and worse short-term clinical outcomes. It should be emphasized that these results and conclusions are based on relatively short-term clinical follow-up and that the long-term effects of variation in implant position remain unknown.