Surgical treatment of patients with primary and metastatic spinal tumor with use of the O-Arm intraoperative portable computed tomography scanner

The study objective is to demonstrate our experience of employment of O-Arm intraoperative portable сomputed tomography scanner combined with navigation system Stealth Station Treon Plus (Medtronic Navigation) during decompressive-stabilizing surgeries for patients with primary and metastatic spinal tumors.

Materials and methods. We have reviewed results of surgical treatment of 44 patients (24 males and 20 females, average age is 54.3 ± 1.8), who were hospitalized and operated in the department of spinal neurosurgery in Federal Centre of Neurosurgery (Tyumen). All surgeries were performed by one surgical team in the period of April 2011 to June 2017. All patients underwent full clinical examination according to diagnostic algorithm, including assessment of general condition, degree of bone and visceral dissemination, neurological status, quality of life, pain syndrome intensity. The most common cause of vertebral lesions was plasma cell myeloma (15 patients, 34.1 %), metastatic spinal lesions (12 patients, 27.3 %). Patients were subjected to posterior decompression and stabilization with total and subtotal excision of mass lesions. Assessment of degree of decompression and transpedicular fixation were carried out visually using O-Arm combined with navigation station.

Results. In 6 to 12 months after surgery 79.5 % of patients demonstrated significant improvement of neurological status, specifically a decrease of conduction and sensory disorders. Degree of pain syndrome was reduced by 3.6 times. Using O-Arm combined with navigation station we placed screws adequately in 99.6 % of the cases. The main technical problem that occurred during the surgery was the failure of navigation system caused by: defect of reflective spheres, distant installation and shift of referential frame, aging of Jamshidi needle, malfunction of navigation camera, failure of data transfer from navigation station.

Conclusion. The use of O-Arm combined with navigation station for decompressive and stabilizing surgeries in patients with spine and spinal cord tumors let us perform surgeries with 3D control and navigation, conduct surgeries in areas where it is hard to determine surgical landmarks, ensure precision of transpedicular screw implantation, accomplish total resection of mass lesions with minimal blood loss and less aggressive surgical intervention and properly decompress the spinal canal which, eventually, result in positive anatomical and functional characteristics, and contribute to good general outcome of surgical intervention.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Informed consent. All patients gave written informed consent to participate in the study and to the publication of their data.

1. Bandiera S., Ghermandi R., Gasbarrini A. et al. Navigation-assisted surgery for tumors of the spine. Eur Spine J 2013;22 Suppl 6:S919–24. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-3032-x.

2. Chang K., Pham M.H., Hsieh P.C. Intraoperative imaging and navigation for minimally invasive spinal tumor surgery: case series and literature review. World Spinal Column J 2017;2:97–110.

3. Rahmathulla G., Nottmeier E.W., Pirris S.M. et al. Intraoperative imageguided spinal navigation: technical pitfalls and their avoidance. Neurosurg Focus 2014;36(3):E3. DOI: 10.3171/2014.1.FOCUS13516.

4. Tian N.F., Xu H.Z. Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2009;33(4):895–903. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-009-0792-3.

5. Tjardes T., Shafizadeh S., Rixen D. et al. Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions. Eur Spine J 2010;19(1):25–45. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1091-9.

6. Verma S.K., Singh P.K., Agrawal D. et al. O-Arm with navigation versus C-arm: a review of screw placement over 3 years at a major trauma center. Br J Neurosurg 2016;30(6):658–61. DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2016.1206179.

7. Han W., Gao Z.L., Wang J.C. et al. Pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine: a comparison study of computerassisted navigation and conventional techniques. Orthopedics 2010;33(8). DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20100625-14.

8. Mason A., Paulsen R., Babuska J.M. et al. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;20(2):196–203. DOI: 10.3171/2013.11.SPINE13413.

9. Tian N.F., Huang Q.S., Zhou P. et al. Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Spine J 2011;20(6):846–59. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1577-5.

10. Wu H., Gao Z.L., Wang J.C. et al. Pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine: a randomized comparison study of computer-assisted navigation and conventional techniques. Chin J Traumatol 2010;13(4):201–5.

11. Moses Z.B., Mayer R.R., Strickland B.A. et al. Neuronavigation in minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2013;35(2):E12. DOI: 10.3171/2013.5.FOCUS13150.

12. Larson A.N., Polly D.W. Jr, Guidera K.J. et al. The accuracy of navigation and 3D image-guided placement for the placement of pedicle screws in congenital spine deformity. J Pediatr Orthop 2012;32(6):e23–9. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318263a39e.

13. Sufianov A.A., Manashuk V.I., Nabiev D.N. et al. Transcutaneous transpedicular osteosynthesis of lumbar spine using mobile operative X-ray unit О-Arm in coincidence with navigation system. Neyrokhirurgiya = Russian Journal of Neurosurgery 2013;(3):58–64. (In Russ.).

14. Mendelsohn D., Strelzow J., Dea N. et al. Patient and surgeon radiation exposure during spinal instrumentation using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation. Spine J 2016;16(3):343–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.11.020.

15. Riis J., Lehman R.R., Perera R.A. et al. A retrospective comparison of intraoperative CT and fluoroscopy evaluating radiation exposure in posterior spinal fusions for scoliosis. Patient Saf Surg 2011;11:32. DOI: 10.1186/s13037-017-0142-0.

16. Srinivasan D., Than K.D., Wang A.C. et al. Radiation safety and spine surgery: systematic review of exposure limits and methods to minimize radiation exposure. World Neurosurg 2014;82(6):1337–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.07.041.

17. Ishikawa Y., Kanemura T., Yoshida G. et al. Intraoperative, full-rotation, threedimensional image (O-Arm) based navigation system for cervical pedicle screw insertion. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;15(5):472–8. DOI: 10.3171/2011.6.SPINE10809.

18. Kim T.T., Drazin D., Shweikeh F. et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive percutaneous pedicle screw placement with intraoperative CT (O-Arm) image guidance navigation. Neurosurg Focus 2014;36(3):E1. DOI: 10.3171/2014.1.FOCUS13531.

19. Sembrano J.N., Polly D.W. Jr, Ledonio C.G., Santos E.R. Intraoperative 3-dimensional imaging (O-Arm) for assessment of pedicle screw position: does it prevent unacceptable screw placement? Int J Spine Surg 2012;6:49–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsp.2011.11.002.

20. Choi D., Crockard A., Bunger C. et al. Review of metastatic spine tumour classification and indications for surgery: the consensus statement of the Global Spine Tumour Study Group. Eur Spine J 2010;19(2):215–22. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1252-x.

21. Tomita K., Kawahara N., Murakami H., Demura S. Total en bloc spondylectomy for spinal tumors: improvement of the technique and its associated basic back ground. J Orthop Sci 2006;11(1):3–12. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-005-0964-y.

22. Gertzbein S.D., Robbins S.E. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990;15(1):11–4. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199001000-00004.

23. Boriani S., Gasbarrini A., Bandiera S. et al. En bloc resections in the spine: the experience of 220 patients during 25 years. World Neurosurg 2017;98:217–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.086.

24. Eleraky M., Papanastassiou I., Vrionis F.D. Management of metastatic spine disease. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 2010;4(3):182–8. DOI: 10.1097/SPC.0b013e32833d2fdd.

25. North R.B., LaRocca V.R., Schwartz J. et al. Surgical management of spinal metastases: analysis of prognostic factors during a 10-year experience. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;2(5):564–73. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2005.2.5.0564.

26. Kehayov I.I., Zhelyazkov C.B., Kalnev B.M. et al. Initial experience with O-Arm navigated spinal surgery – report on two cases. Folia Med (Plovdiv) 2016;58(4):293–8. DOI: 10.1515/folmed-2016-0033.

27. Oertel M.F., Hobart J., Stein M. et al. Clinical and methodological precision of spinal navigation assisted by 3D intraoperative O-arm radiographic imaging. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14(4):532–6. DOI: 10.3171/2010.10.SPINE091032.

28. Wood M.J., McMillen J. The surgical learning curve and accuracy of minimally invasive lumbar pedicle screw placement using CT based computer-assisted navigation plus continuous electromyography monitoring – a retrospective review of 627 screws in 150 patients. Int J Spine Surg 2014;8. DOI: 10.14444/1027.

29. Lau D., Lee J.G., Han S.J. et al. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci 2011;18(5):624–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.09.004.