Augmented reality overlay fluoroscopic guidance versus CT-fluoroscopic guidance for sacroplasty.
Journal Article (Journal Article)
PURPOSE: To evaluate patient outcomes after sacroplasty (percutaneous sacral augmentation) with guidance using CT compared to fluoroscopy with augmented reality overlay using fluoroscopic cone-beam CT and FDA-approved software (CBCT-AF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective IRB-approved study of all patients undergoing sacroplasty between 3/2019-9/2020 was performed. Procedural details were collected including whether the procedure was performed with CT-fluoroscopic guidance versus cone beam CT with vector navigation and real-time neuroforaminal contour overlay. Clinical details collected included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores within 6-months post intervention. Images were analyzed on PACS to measure exact volumes of implanted cement. RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent sacroplasty using either CT (n = 13 hemisacra) or CBCT-AF (n = 10 hemisacra). No clinically significant complications occurred. Comparing CT versus CBCT-AF guidance there was no significant difference in radiation dose (CBCT-AF trended toward lower dose, p = 0.20), total anesthesia time (p = 0.71), or infused cement volume (p = 0.21). VAS pain scores decreased an average of 6.14 and 5.25 points for the CT and CBCT-AF groups respectively (p = 0.46, no significant difference between groups). CONCLUSION: Sacroplasty improved back pain in all patients, while CBCT-AF safely provided similar outcomes with trends toward lower radiation dose and cement volume compared to CT-fluoroscopy.
Full Text
Duke Authors
Cited Authors
- Sag, AA; Zuchowski, A; Ronald, J; Goodwin, CR; Enterline, DS
Published Date
- May 2022
Published In
Volume / Issue
- 85 /
Start / End Page
- 14 - 21
PubMed ID
- 35228170
Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)
- 1873-4499
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
- 10.1016/j.clinimag.2022.02.013
Language
- eng
Conference Location
- United States