ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Radiation dose and image quality comparison during spine surgery with two different, intraoperative 3D imaging navigation systems.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use of hybrid operating rooms in neurosurgery, advantages, disadvantages, and future perspectives: a systematic review.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Pooled it
- Augmented Reality (AR) for Surgical Robotic and Autonomous Systems: State of the Art, Challenges, and Solutions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Usefulness of portrait imaging for intraoperative cone beam computed tomography in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: a phantom study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
- Image Quality Comparison of Three 3D Mobile X-Ray Imaging Guidance Devices Used in Spine Surgery: A Phantom Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Radiation exposure for pedicle screw placement with three different navigation system and imaging combinations in a sawbone model.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Image quality and radiation dose in spinal surgery: a comparison of three imaging systems in phantom.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- [Camera-based navigation in the hybrid operating room].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Radiation distribution in a hybrid operating room, utilizing different X-ray imaging systems: investigations to minimize occupational exposure.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2022Article
- Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment (MIST)-A New Concept in the Treatment of Spinal Diseases: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Image Quality and Dose Comparison of 3 Mobile Intraoperative Three-Dimensional Imaging Systems in Spine Surgery.World neurosurgery · 2022Article
- Vertebrae segmentation in reduced radiation CT imaging for augmented reality applications.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2022Article
- Radiation Exposure in Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Comparison of CT Image-Guided Navigation, Robotic Assistance, and Intraoperative Fluoroscopy.Global spine journal · 2021Article
- Feasibility and accuracy of a robotic guidance system for navigated spine surgery in a hybrid operating room: a cadaver study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Careful protocol selection is required during intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) imaging for spine surgery to manage patient radiation dose and achieve clinical image quality. Radiation dose and image quality of a Medtronic O-arm commonly used during spine surgery, and a Philips hybrid operating room equipped with XperCT C-arm 3D cone-beam CT (hCBCT) are compared. The mobile O-arm (mCBCT) offers three different radiation dose settings (low, standard, and high), for four different patient sizes (small, medium, large, and extra large). The patient's radiation dose rate is constant during the entire 3D scan. In contrast, C-CBCT spine imaging uses three different field of views (27, 37, and 48 cm) using automatic exposure control (AEC) that modulates the patient's radiation dose rate during the 3D scan based on changing patient thickness. hCBCT uses additional x-ray beam filtration. Small, medium, and large trunk phantoms designed to mimic spine and soft tissue were imaged to assess radiation dose and image quality of the two systems. The estimated measured "patient" dose for the small, medium, and large phantoms imaged by the mCBCT considering all the dose settings ranged from 9.4-27.6 mGy, 8.9-33.3 mGy, and 13.8-40.6 mGy, respectively. The "patient" dose values for the same phantoms imaged with hCBCT were 2.8-4.6 mGy, 5.7-10.0 mGy, and 11.0-15.2 mGy. The CNR for the small, medium, and large phantoms was 2.9 to 3.7, 2.0 to 3.0, and 2.5 to 2.6 times higher with the hCBCT system, respectively. Hounsfield unit accuracy, noise, and uniformity of hCBCT exceeded the performance of the mCBCT; spatial resolution was comparable. Added x-ray beam filtration and AEC capability achieved clinical image quality for intraoperative spine surgery at reduced radiation dose to the patient in comparison to a reference O-arm system without these capabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.