Man versus machine: Automatic pedicle screw planning using registration‐based techniques compared with manual screw planning for thoracolumbar fusion surgeries
Ulf Bertram, István Kövesházi, Monika Michaelis, Simon Weidert, Tobias Philip Schmidt, Christian Blume, F Zastrow, Christian‐Andreas Müller, Szilárd Szabó
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the precision of a commercially available spine planning software in automatic spine labelling and screw-trajectory proposal. METHODS: The software uses automatic segmentation and registration of the vertebra to generate screw proposals. 877 trajectories were compared. Four neurosurgeons assessed suggested trajectories, performed corrections, and manually planned pedicle screws. Additionally, automatic identification/labelling was evaluated. RESULTS: Automatic labelling was correct in 89% of the cases. 92.9% of automatically planned trajectories were in accordance with G&R grade A + B. Automatic mode reduced the time spent planning screw trajectories by 7 s per screw to 20 s per vertebra. Manual mode yielded differences in screw-length between surgeons (largest distribution peak: 5 mm), automatic in contrast at 0 mm. The size of suggested pedicle screws was significantly smaller (largest peaks in difference between 0.5 and 3 mm) than the surgeon's choice. CONCLUSION: Automatic identification of vertebrae works in most cases and suggested pedicle screw trajectories are acceptable. So far, it does not substitute for an experienced surgeon's assessment.