OBJECTIVEAugmented reality (AR) is a novel technology that has the potential to increase the technical feasibility, accuracy, and safety of conventional manual and robotic computer-navigated pedicle insertion methods. Visual data are directly projected to the operator’s retina and overlaid onto the surgical field, thereby removing the requirement to shift attention to a remote display. The objective of this study was to assess the comparative accuracy of AR-assisted pedicle screw insertion in comparison to conventional pedicle screw insertion methods.METHODSFive cadaveric male torsos were instrumented bilaterally from T6 to L5 for a total of 120 inserted pedicle screws. Postprocedural CT scans were obtained, and screw insertion accuracy was graded by 2 independent neuroradiologists using both the Gertzbein scale (GS) and a combination of that scale and the Heary classification, referred to in this paper as the Heary-Gertzbein scale (HGS). Non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing the accuracy to freehand, manual computer-navigated, and robotics-assisted computer-navigated insertion accuracy rates reported in the literature. User experience analysis was conducted via a user experience questionnaire filled out by operators after the procedures.RESULTSThe overall screw placement accuracy achieved with the AR system was 96.7% based on the HGS and 94.6% based on the GS. Insertion accuracy was non-inferior to accuracy reported for manual computer-navigated pedicle insertion based on both the GS and the HGS scores. When compared to accuracy reported for robotics-assisted computer-navigated insertion, accuracy achieved with the AR system was found to be non-inferior when assessed with the GS, but superior when assessed with the HGS. Last, accuracy results achieved with the AR system were found to be superior to results obtained with freehand insertion based on both the HGS and the GS scores. Accuracy results were not found to be inferior in any comparison. User experience analysis yielded “excellent” usability classification.CONCLUSIONSAR-assisted pedicle screw insertion is a technically feasible and accurate insertion method.

No abstract

Although increasingly aggressive decompression and resection methods have resulted in improved outcomes for patients with metastatic spine disease, these aggressive surgeries are not feasible for patients with numerous comorbid conditions. Such patients stand to benefit from management via minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS), given its association with decreased perioperative morbidity. We performed a systematic review of literature with the goal of evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of MIS in the setting of metastatic spine disease. Results suggest that MIS is an efficacious means of achieving neurological improvement and alleviating pain. In addition, data suggests that MIS offers decreased blood loss, operative time, and complication rates in comparison to standard open spine surgery. However, due to the paucity of studies and low class of available evidence, the ability to draw comprehensive conclusions is limited. Future investigations should be conducted comparing standard surgery versus MIS in a prospective fashion.

Object Chordomas involving the mobile spine are ideally managed via en bloc resection with reconstruction to optimize local control and possibly offer cure. In the cervical spine, local anatomy poses unique challenges, limiting the feasibility of aggressive resection. The authors present a multi-institutional series of 16 cases of cervical chordomas removed en bloc. Particular attention was paid to clinical outcome, complications, and recurrence. In addition, outcomes were assessed according to position of tumor at the C1–2 level versus the subaxial (SA) spine (C3–7). Methods The authors reviewed cases involving patients who underwent en bloc resection of cervical chordoma at 4 large spine centers. Patients were included if the lesion epicenter involved the C-1 to C-7 vertebral bodies. Demographic data and details of surgery, follow-up course, exposure to adjuvant therapy, and complications were obtained. Outcome was correlated with presence of tumor in C1–2 versus subaxial spine via a Student t-test. Results Sixteen patients were identified (mean age at presentation 55 ± 14 years). Seven cases (44%) cases involved C1–2, and 16 involved the subaxial spine. Median survival did not differ significantly different between the C1–2 (72 months) and SA (60 months) groups (p = 0.65). A combined (staged anteroposterior) approach was used in 81% of the cases. Use of the combined approach was significantly more common in treatment of subaxial than C1–2 tumors (100% vs 57%, p = 0.04). En bloc resection was attempted via an anterior approach in 6% of cases (C1–2: 14.3%; SA: 0%; p = 0.17) and a posterior approach in 13% of cases (C1–2: 29%; SA: 0%; p = 0.09). The most commonly reported margin classification was marginal (56% of cases), followed by violated (25%) and wide (19%). En bloc excision of subaxial tumors was significantly more likely to result in marginal margins than excision of C1–2 tumors (C1–2: 29%; SA: 78%; p = 0.03). C1–2 tumors were associated with significantly higher rates of postoperative complications (C1–2: 71%; SA: 22%; p = 0.03). Both local and distant tumor recurrence was greatest for C1–2 tumors (local C1–2: 29%; local SA: 11%; distant C1–2: 14%; distant SA: 0%). Statistical analysis of tumor recurrence based on tumor location was not possible due to the small number of cases. There was no between-groups difference in exposure to postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy. There was no difference in median survival between groups receiving proton beam radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus no radiation therapy (p = 0.8). Conclusions Compared with en bloc resection of chordomas involving the subaxial cervical spine, en bloc resection of chordomas involving the upper cervical spine (C1–2) is associated with poorer outcomes, such as less favorable margins, higher rates of complications, and increased tumor recurrence. Data from this cohort do not support a statistically significant difference in survival for patients with C1–2 versus subaxial disease, but larger studies are needed to further study survival differences.