Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Vertebrae segmentation in reduced radiation CT imaging for augmented reality applications

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

There is growing evidence for the use of augmented reality (AR) navigation in spinal surgery to increase surgical accuracy and improve clinical outcomes. Recent research has employed AR techniques to create accurate auto-segmentations, the basis of patient registration, using reduced radiation dose intraoperative computed tomography images. In this study, we aimed to determine if spinal surgery AR applications can employ reduced radiation dose preoperative computed tomography (pCT) images.

Methods

We methodically decreased the imaging dose, with the addition of Gaussian noise, that was introduced into pCT images to determine the image quality threshold that was required for auto-segmentation. The Gaussian distribution’s standard deviation determined noise level, such that a scalar multiplier (L: [0.00, 0.45], with steps of 0.03) simulated lower doses as L increased. We then enhanced the images with denoising algorithms to evaluate the effect on the segmentation.

Results

The pCT radiation dose was decreased to below the current lowest clinical threshold and the resulting images produced segmentations that were appropriate for input into AR applications. This held true at simulated dose L = 0.06 (estimated 144 mAs) but not at L = 0.09 (estimated 136 mAs). The application of denoising algorithms to the images resulted in increased artifacts and decreased bone density.

Conclusions

The pCT image quality that is required for AR auto-segmentation is lower than that which is currently employed in spinal surgery. We recommend a reduced radiation dose protocol of approximately 140 mAs. This has the potential to reduce the radiation experienced by patients in comparison to procedures without AR support. Future research is required to identify the specific, clinically relevant radiation dose thresholds required for surgical navigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The ground truth images that are modified are included in the figures.

Code availability

Code is available upon request.

References

  1. Bydon M, Xu R, Amin AG et al (2014) Safety and efficacy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative computed tomography: consecutive series of 1148 pedicle screws: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 21(3):320–328. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.5.SPINE13567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tajsic T, Patel K, Farmer R, Mannion RJ, Trivedi RA (2018) Spinal navigation for minimally invasive thoracic and lumbosacral spine fixation: implications for radiation exposure, operative time, and accuracy of pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J 27(8):1918–1924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5587-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Van de Kelft E, Costa F, Van der Planken D, Schils F (2012) A prospective multicenter registry on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral levels with the use of the o-arm imaging system and stealthstation navigation. Spine 37(25):E1580. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318271b1fa

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Edström E, Burström G, Omar A et al (2020) Augmented reality surgical navigation in spine surgery to minimize staff radiation exposure. Spine 45(1):E45. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meng XT, Guan XF, Zhang HL, He SS (2016) Computer navigation versus fluoroscopy-guided navigation for thoracic pedicle screw placement: a meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev 39(3):385–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-015-0679-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tian NF, Huang QS, Zhou P et al (2011) Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Spine J 20(6):846–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1577-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Burström G, Persson O, Edström E, Elmi-Terander A (2021) Augmented reality navigation in spine surgery: a systematic review. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 163(3):843–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-021-04708-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nachabe R, Strauss K, Schueler B, Bydon M (2019) Radiation dose and image quality comparison during spine surgery with two different, intraoperative 3D imaging navigation systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys 20(2):136–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12534

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoo JS, Patel DS, Hrynewycz NM, Brundage TS, Singh K (2019) The utility of virtual reality and augmented reality in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med 7(Suppl 5):S171. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.06.38

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Edström E, Burström G, Nachabe R, Gerdhem P, Elmi TA (2020) A novel augmented-reality-based surgical navigation system for spine surgery in a hybrid operating room: design, workflow, and clinical applications. Oper Neurosurg 18(5):496–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opz236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carl B, Bopp M, Saß B, Voellger B, Nimsky C (2019) Implementation of augmented reality support in spine surgery. Eur Spine J 28(7):1697–1711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05969-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elmi-Terander A, Burström G, Nachabe R et al (2019) Pedicle screw placement using augmented reality surgical navigation with intraoperative 3D imaging. Spine 44(7):517–525. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Markelj P, Tomaževič D, Likar B, Pernuš F (2012) A review of 3D/2D registration methods for image-guided interventions. Med Image Anal 16(3):642–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2010.03.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mayo JR, Whittall KP, Leung AN et al (1997) Simulated dose reduction in conventional chest CT: validation study. Radiology 202(2):453–457. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.202.2.9015073

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu J (2021) Remove JPEG noise via CNN on keras and tensorflow 2.0. Accessed 15 Nov 2021. https://github.com/jason71995/jpeg_denoise

  16. Alshamari M, Geijer M, Norrman E, Geijer H (2014) Low-dose computed tomography of the lumbar spine: a phantom study on imaging parameters and image quality. Acta Radiol 55(7):824–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185113509615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koo B, Robu MR, Allam M et al (2021) Automatic, global registration in laparoscopic liver surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02518-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Karimi D, Salcudean S (2019) Reducing the Hausdorff distance in medical image segmentation with convolutional neural networks. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 39(2):499–513. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2019.2930068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Malham GM, Munday NR (2021) Comparison of novel machine vision spinal image guidance system with existing 3D fluoroscopy-based navigation system: a randomized prospective study. Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.10.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang CH, Wu TH, Chiou YY et al (2014) Imaging quality and diagnostic reliability of low-dose computed tomography lumbar spine for evaluating patients with spinal disorders. Spine J 14(11):2682–2690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Manni F, Elmi-Terander A, Burström G et al (2020) Towards optical imaging for spine tracking without markers in navigated spine surgery. Sensors 20(13):3641. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20133641

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Warncke ML, Wiese NJ, Tahir E et al (2020) Highly reduced-dose CT of the lumbar spine in a human cadaver model. PLoS ONE 15(10):e0240199. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mulkens TH, Marchal P, Daineffe S et al (2007) Comparison of low-dose with standard-dose multidetector CT in cervical spine trauma. Am J Neuroradiol 28(8):1444–1450. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A0608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Weinrich JM, Maas KJ, Starekova J et al (2019) Feasibility of submillisievert CT of the skeletal pelvis using iterative reconstruction: a human cadaver study. Am J Roentgenol 213(4):903–911. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Carl B, Bopp M, Saß B, Nimsky C (2019) Microscope-based augmented reality in degenerative spine surgery: initial experience. World Neurosurg 128:e541–e551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anand Veeravagu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Anand Veeravagu is a consultant for Surgical Theater; Tatiana Jansen is an employee of Surgical Theater.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors have given their consent for publication.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schonfeld, E., de Lotbiniere-Bassett, M., Jansen, T. et al. Vertebrae segmentation in reduced radiation CT imaging for augmented reality applications. Int J CARS 17, 775–783 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-022-02561-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-022-02561-y

Keywords

Navigation