Clinical imaging · 2022
Augmented reality overlay fluoroscopic guidance versus CT-fluoroscopic guidance for sacroplasty.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sag Alan A, Zuchowski Adam, Ronald James, Goodwin C Rory, Enterline David S
Аннотация
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.
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.