Automatic Path-Planning Techniques for Minimally Invasive Stereotactic Neurosurgical Procedures-A Systematic Review.

This review systematically examines the recent research from the past decade on diverse path-planning algorithms tailored for stereotactic neurosurgery applications. Our comprehensive investigation involved a thorough search of scholarly papers from Google Scholar, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus, utilizing stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria. The screening and selection process was meticulously conducted by a multidisciplinary team comprising three medical students, robotic experts with specialized knowledge in path-planning techniques and medical robotics, and a board-certified neurosurgeon. Each selected paper was reviewed in detail, and the findings were synthesized and reported in this review. The paper is organized around three different types of intervention tools: straight needles, steerable needles, and concentric tube robots. We provide an in-depth analysis of various path-planning algorithms applicable to both single and multi-target scenarios. Multi-target planning techniques are only discussed for straight tools as there is no published work on multi-target planning for steerable needles and concentric tube robots. Additionally, we discuss the imaging modalities employed, the critical anatomical structures considered during path planning, and the current status of research regarding its translation to clinical human studies. To the best of our knowledge and as a conclusion from this systematic review, this is the first review paper published in the last decade that reports various path-planning techniques for different types of tools for minimally invasive neurosurgical applications. Furthermore, this review outlines future trends and identifies existing technology gaps within the field. By highlighting these aspects, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview that can guide future research and development in path planning for stereotactic neurosurgery, ultimately contributing to the advancement of safer and more effective neurosurgical procedures.

Preoperative Echocardiogram Does Not Contribute to Surgical Risk Assessment in Patients With Large Curve Scoliosis and No Cardiac Risk Factors.

OBJECTIVE: Severe scoliosis can affect thoracic organs, potentially leading to cardiovascular abnormalities. Thus, echocardiograms have been suggested for use in preoperative screening in patients with significant scoliosis. However, the utility of preoperative heart screenings in patients without known or suspected heart problems is not well understood. This study aims to find the incidence of cardiac findings in patients with severe scoliosis ≥90° without cardiac history. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective chart review was performed. Inclusion criteria were scoliosis patients with curves ≥90 degrees and a screening echocardiogram performed within 6 months of spine surgery. Patients with a previous cardiac history, diagnosis associated with cardiac comorbidities (eg, connective tissue disease), or major coronal curves <90 degrees were excluded. Echocardiogram reports and perioperative clinical notes from involved services (including orthopaedics, cardiology, and anesthesia) were reviewed. Any postoperative use of vasopressors and reasons for their use were recorded. RESULTS: Overall, 50 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at surgery was 14.0 ± 4.9 years old (range: 2 to 33). The mean major curve was 108 ± 19 degrees (range: 90 to 160 degrees). A normal echocardiogram was seen in 38 (76%), whereas 6 patients (12%) had mild dilation of the aortic sinus or root, 4 (8%) had mild valvular regurgitation, 1 patient had a small atrial septal defect, and 1 had a trace pericardial effusion. No patient had any changes made to their perioperative plan and one patient was advised to see a cardiologist postoperatively. Postoperatively, 8 patients (16%) received vasopressors to raise blood pressure to meet preset goal MAP, but only one of these 8 had a positive echocardiogram (mild valvular insufficiency), which was not seen as a contributing factor to the use of pressors. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that screening echocardiograms for patients without a cardiac history or related symptoms does not contribute to the evaluation of perioperative risk or anesthetic management. Creating clear, evidence-based guidelines for the utilization of perioperative testing, like echocardiograms, can reduce the social, time, and financial burdens on families. Such guidelines are vital for appropriate risk assessment and proper utilization of health care resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Evaluating compliance with the best practice guidelines for wrong-level surgery prevention in high-risk pediatric spine surgery.

PURPOSE: In 2018, Best Practice Guidelines (BPGs) were published for preventing wrong-level surgery in pediatric spinal deformity, but successful implementation has not been established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate BPG compliance 5 years after publication. We hypothesized higher compliance among BPG authors and among surgeons with more experience, higher caseload, and awareness of the BPGs. METHODS: We queried North American and European surgeons, authors and nonauthors, and members of pediatric spinal study groups on adherence to BPGs using an anonymous survey consisting of 18 Likert scale questions. Respondents provided years in practice, yearly caseload, and guideline awareness. Mean compliance scores (MCS) were developed by correlating Likert responses with MCS scores ("None of the time" = no compliance = MCS 0, "Sometimes" = weak to moderate = MCS 1, "Most of the time" = high = MCS 2, and "All the time" = perfect = MCS 3). RESULTS: Of the 134 respondents, 81.5% reported high or perfect compliance. Average MCS for all guidelines was 2.4 ± 0.4. North American and European surgeons showed no compliance differences (2.4 vs. 2.3, p = 0.07). Authors and nonauthors showed significantly different compliance scores (2.8 vs 2.4, p < 0.001), as did surgeons with and without knowledge of the BPGs (2.5 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). BPG awareness and compliance showed a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.48, p < 0.001), with non-significant associations between compliance and both years in practice (r = 0.41, p = 0.64) and yearly caseload (r = 0.02, p = 0.87). CONCLUSION: Surgeons reported high or perfect compliance 81.5% of the time with BPGs for preventing wrong-level surgery. Authorship and BPG awareness showed increased compliance. Location, study group membership, years in practice, and yearly caseload did not affect compliance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V-expert opinion.

Evaluating compliance with the 2013 best practice guidelines for preventing surgical site infection in high-risk pediatric spine surgery.

PURPOSE: Best Practice Guidelines (BPGs) were published one decade ago to decrease surgical site infection (SSI) in pediatric spinal deformity. Successful implementation has not been established. This study evaluated surgeon compliance with items on the BPG. We hypothesized that BPG authors and surgeons with more experience, higher caseload, and awareness of the BPG would have higher compliance. METHODS: We queried North American and European surgeons, authors and non-authors, and members of various spine study groups on adherence to BPGs using an anonymous survey. Mean compliance scores (MCSs) were developed by correlating Likert responses with MCSs ("None of the time" = no compliance = MCS 0, "Sometimes" = weak to moderate = MCS 1, "Most of the time" = high = MCS 2, "All the time" = perfect = MCS 3). RESULTS: Of the 142 respondents, 73.7% reported high or perfect compliance. Average compliance scores for all guidelines was 2.2 ± 0.4. There were significantly different compliance scores between North American and European surgeons (2.3 vs 1.8, p < 0.001), authors and non-authors (2.5 vs. 2.2, p = 0.023), and surgeons with and without knowledge of the BPGs (2.3 vs. 1.8, p < 0.001). There was a weak correlation between BPG awareness and compliance (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and no correlation between years in practice (r = 0.0, p = 0.37) or yearly caseload (r = 0.2, p = 0.78) with compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance among our cohort of surgeons surveyed was high. North American surgeons, authors of the BPGs and those aware of the guidelines had increased compliance. Participation in a spine study group, years in practice, and yearly caseload were not associated with compliance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V-expert opinion.

Thoracic pediculectomy for acute spinal cord decompression in high-risk spinal deformity correction: illustrative case.

BACKGROUND: Neurological complications are higher in patients with severe spinal deformities (Cobb angle >100°). The authors highlight a known technique for thoracic concave apical pedicle resection that is useful for spinal cord decompression in patients with high-risk spinal deformities in the setting of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) changes. OBSERVATIONS: A 14-year-old female with progressive idiopathic scoliosis presented for evaluation of her clinical deformity. Scoliosis radiographs showed a double major curve pattern comprising a 107° right main thoracic curve and a compensatory 88° left thoracolumbar curve. She underwent 2 weeks of halo-gravity traction that reduced her major thoracic curve to 72°. During thoracic posterior column osteotomies, the authors were alerted to decreases in IONM signals that were not responsive to increases in mean arterial pressure, traction weight reduction, and convex compression maneuvers. The dural surface was tightly draped over the two thoracic apical pedicles of T7 and T8, so emergent pediculectomies were performed at both levels for spinal cord decompression. IONM signals gradually improved and eventually became even better than baseline. The patient woke up without any neurological deficits. LESSONS: Pediculectomy of the concave apical pedicle(s) should be considered for spinal cord decompression if there are IONM changes during high-risk spinal deformity surgery.