Two years of neurosurgical intraoperative MRI in Sweden - evaluation of use and costs.

BACKGROUND: The current shortage of radiology staff in healthcare provides a challenge for departments all over the world. This leads to more evaluation of how the radiology resources are used and a demand to use them in the most efficient way. Intraoperative MRI is one of many recent advancements in radiological practice. If radiology staff is performing intraoperative MRI at the operation ward, they may be impeded from performing other examinations at the radiology department, creating costs in terms of exams not being performed. Since this is a kind of cost whose importance is likely to increase, we have studied the practice of intraoperative MRI in Sweden. METHODS: The study includes data from the first four hospitals in Sweden that installed MRI scanners adjacent to the operating theaters. In addition, we included data from Karolinska University Hospital in Solna where intraoperative MRI is carried out at the radiology department. RESULTS: Scanners that were moved into the operation theater and doing no or few other scans were used 11-12% of the days. Stationary scanners adjacent to the operation room were used 35-41% of the days. For scanners situated at the radiology department doing intraoperative scans interspersed among all other scans, the proportion was 92%. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that performing exams at the radiology department rather than at several locations throughout the hospital may be an efficient approach to tackle the simultaneous trends of increasing demands for imaging and increasing staff shortages at radiology departments.

Automatic image registration on intraoperative CBCT compared to Surface Matching registration on preoperative CT for spinal navigation: accuracy and workflow.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal navigation solutions have been slower to develop compared to cranial ones. To facilitate greater adoption and use of spinal navigation, the relatively cumbersome registration processes need to be improved upon. This study aims to validate a new solution for automatic image registration and compare it to a traditional Surface Matching method. METHOD: Adult patients undergoing spinal surgery requiring navigation were enrolled after providing consent. A registration matrix-Universal AIR (= Automatic Image Registration)-was placed in the surgical field and used for automatic registration based on intraoperative 3D imaging. A standard Surface Matching method was used for comparison. Accuracy measurements were obtained by comparing planned and acquired coordinates on the vertebrae. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with 42 datasets were included. The mean accuracy of Universal AIR registration was 1.20 ± 0.42 mm, while the mean accuracy of Surface Matching registration was 1.94 ± 0.64 mm. Universal AIR registration was non-inferior to Surface Matching registration. Post hoc analysis showed a significantly greater accuracy for Universal AIR registration. In Surface Matching, but not automatic registration, user-related errors such as incorrect identification of the vertebral level were seen. CONCLUSION: Automatic image registration for spinal navigation using Universal AIR and intraoperative 3D imaging provided improved accuracy compared to Surface Matching registration. In addition, it minimizes user errors and offers a standardized workflow, making it a reliable registration method for navigated spinal procedures.

The use of hybrid operating rooms in neurosurgery, advantages, disadvantages, and future perspectives: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid operating rooms (hybrid-ORs) combine the functionalities of a conventional surgical theater with the advanced imaging technologies of a radiological suite. Hybrid-ORs are usually equipped with CBCT devices providing both 2D and 3D imaging capability that can be used for both interventional radiology and image guided surgical applications. Across all fields of surgery, the use of hybrid-ORs is gaining in traction, and neurosurgery is no exception. We hence aimed to comprehensively review the use of hybrid-ORs, the associated advantages, and disadvantages specific to the field of neurosurgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for all studies on hybrid-ORs from inception to May 2022. Findings of matching studies were pooled to strengthen the current body of evidence. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies were included in this review. Hybrid-ORs were mainly used in endovascular surgery (n = 41) and spine surgery (n = 33). Navigation systems were the most common additional technology employed along with the CBCT systems in the hybrid-ORs. Reported advantages of hybrid-ORs included immediate assessment of outcomes, reduced surgical revision rate, and the ability to perform combined open and endovascular procedures, among others. Concerns about increased radiation exposure and procedural time were some of the limitations mentioned. CONCLUSION: In the field of neurosurgery, the use of hybrid-ORs for different applications is increasing. Hybrid-ORs provide preprocedure, intraprocedure, and end-of-procedure imaging capabilities, thereby increasing surgical precision, and reducing the need for postoperative imaging and correction surgeries. Despite these advantages, radiation exposure to patient and staff is an important concern.

Feasibility and Accuracy of Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Using an Augmented Reality Head Mounted Device.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the accuracy of augmented reality (AR) navigation using the Magic Leap head mounted device (HMD), pedicle screws were minimally invasively placed in four spine phantoms. METHODS: AR navigation provided by a combination of a conventional navigation system integrated with the Magic Leap head mounted device (AR-HMD) was used. Forty-eight screws were planned and inserted into Th11-L4 of the phantoms using the AR-HMD and navigated instruments. Postprocedural CT scans were used to grade the technical (deviation from the plan) and clinical (Gertzbein grade) accuracy of the screws. The time for each screw placement was recorded. RESULTS: The mean deviation between navigation plan and screw position was 1.9 ± 0.7 mm (1.9 [0.3-4.1] mm) at the entry point and 1.4 ± 0.8 mm (1.2 [0.1-3.9] mm) at the screw tip. The angular deviation was 3.0 ± 1.4° (2.7 [0.4-6.2]°) and the mean time for screw placement was 130 ± 55 s (108 [58-437] s). The clinical accuracy was 94% according to the Gertzbein grading scale. CONCLUSION: The combination of an AR-HMD with a conventional navigation system for accurate minimally invasive screw placement is feasible and can exploit the benefits of AR in the perspective of the surgeon with the reliability of a conventional navigation system.