TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing radiation dose of image-guided techniques in lumbar fusion surgery with pedicle screw insertion; A systematic review
AU - Caelers, I. J.M.H.
AU - Berendsen, R. C.M.
AU - Droeghaag, R.
AU - Pecasse, N. J.J.
AU - Rijkers, K.
AU - Van Hemert, W. L.W.
AU - De Bie, R. A.
AU - Van Santbrink, H.
N1 - Funding Information:
Not applicable. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article and its supplementary information files. Not applicable. I.C. R.B. R.D. and N.P. worked on the search, data analyses en wrote the main manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript. We would like to thank Mr. Gregor Franssen, medical information specialist Maastricht University, the Netherlands, for his assistance in optimizing the search strategy.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/3/1
Y1 - 2023/3/1
N2 - Background Context: Fluoroscopic devices can be used to visualize subcutaneous and osseous tissue, a useful feature during pedicle screw insertion in lumbar fusion surgery. It is important that both patient and surgeon are exposed as little as possible, since these devices use potential harmful ionizing radiation. Purpose: This study aims to compare radiation exposure of different image-guided techniques in lumbar fusion surgery with pedicle screw insertion. Study Design: Systematic review Methods: Cochrane, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were used to acquire relevant studies. Eligibility criteria were lumbar and/or sacral spine, pedicle screw, mGray and/or Sievert and/or mrem, radiation dose and/or radiation exposure. Image-guided techniques were divided in five groups: conventional C-arm, C-arm navigation, C-arm robotic, O-arm navigation and O-arm robotic. Comparisons were made based on effective dose for patients and surgeons, absorbed dose for patients and surgeons and exposure. Risk of bias was assessed using the 2017 Cochrane Risk of Bias tool on RCTs and the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool on NRCTs. Level of evidence was assessed using the guidelines of Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2011. Results: A total of 1423 studies were identified of which 38 were included in the analysis and assigned to one of the five groups. Results of radiation dose per procedure and per pedicle screw were described in dose ranges. Conventional C-arm appeared to result in higher effective dose for surgeons, higher absorbed dose for patients and higher exposure, compared to C-arm navigation/robotic and O-arm navigation/robotic. Level of evidence was 3 to 4 in 29 studies. Risk of bias of RCTs was intermediate, mostly due to inadequate blinding. Overall risk of bias score in NRCTs was determined as ‘serious’. Conclusions: Ranges of radiation doses using different modalities during pedicle screw insertion in lumbar fusion surgery are wide. Based on the highest numbers in the ranges, conventional C-arm tends to lead to a higher effective dose for surgeons, higher absorbed dose for patients and higher exposure, compared to C-arm-, and O-arm navigation/robotic. The level of evidence is low and risk of bias is fairly high. In future studies, heterogeneity should be limited by standardizing measurement methods and thoroughly describing the image-guided technique settings.
AB - Background Context: Fluoroscopic devices can be used to visualize subcutaneous and osseous tissue, a useful feature during pedicle screw insertion in lumbar fusion surgery. It is important that both patient and surgeon are exposed as little as possible, since these devices use potential harmful ionizing radiation. Purpose: This study aims to compare radiation exposure of different image-guided techniques in lumbar fusion surgery with pedicle screw insertion. Study Design: Systematic review Methods: Cochrane, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were used to acquire relevant studies. Eligibility criteria were lumbar and/or sacral spine, pedicle screw, mGray and/or Sievert and/or mrem, radiation dose and/or radiation exposure. Image-guided techniques were divided in five groups: conventional C-arm, C-arm navigation, C-arm robotic, O-arm navigation and O-arm robotic. Comparisons were made based on effective dose for patients and surgeons, absorbed dose for patients and surgeons and exposure. Risk of bias was assessed using the 2017 Cochrane Risk of Bias tool on RCTs and the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool on NRCTs. Level of evidence was assessed using the guidelines of Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2011. Results: A total of 1423 studies were identified of which 38 were included in the analysis and assigned to one of the five groups. Results of radiation dose per procedure and per pedicle screw were described in dose ranges. Conventional C-arm appeared to result in higher effective dose for surgeons, higher absorbed dose for patients and higher exposure, compared to C-arm navigation/robotic and O-arm navigation/robotic. Level of evidence was 3 to 4 in 29 studies. Risk of bias of RCTs was intermediate, mostly due to inadequate blinding. Overall risk of bias score in NRCTs was determined as ‘serious’. Conclusions: Ranges of radiation doses using different modalities during pedicle screw insertion in lumbar fusion surgery are wide. Based on the highest numbers in the ranges, conventional C-arm tends to lead to a higher effective dose for surgeons, higher absorbed dose for patients and higher exposure, compared to C-arm-, and O-arm navigation/robotic. The level of evidence is low and risk of bias is fairly high. In future studies, heterogeneity should be limited by standardizing measurement methods and thoroughly describing the image-guided technique settings.
KW - Absorbed dose
KW - Effective dose
KW - Exposure
KW - Image-guided techniques
KW - Lumbar fusion surgery
KW - Patient
KW - Pedicle screws
KW - Radiation dose
KW - Surgeon
KW - Systematic review
U2 - 10.1016/j.xnsj.2023.100199
DO - 10.1016/j.xnsj.2023.100199
M3 - (Systematic) Review article
C2 - 36747986
SN - 2666-5484
VL - 13
JO - North American Spine Society journal
JF - North American Spine Society journal
IS - 1
M1 - 100199
ER -