ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2020
Data-Driven Detection and Registration of Spine Surgery Instrumentation in Intraoperative Images.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of a Computer-Assisted Screw Trajectory Planning Model Based on Iterative Closest Point Registration and Weighted K-Nearest Neighbors Algorithms for Cortical Bone and Pedicle Screw Techniques.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Pedicle Screw Position on Computerized Tomography Using Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Software.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Deformable 3D-2D registration for high-precision guidance and verification of neuroelectrode placement.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021Article
- Data-Driven Deformable 3D-2D Registration for Guiding Neuroelectrode Placement in Deep Brain Stimulation.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2021Article
- The Impact of Machine Learning on 2D/3D Registration for Image-Guided Interventions: A Systematic Review and Perspective.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Conventional model-based 3D-2D registration algorithms can be challenged by limited capture range, model validity, and stringent intraoperative runtime requirements. In this work, a deep convolutional neural network was used to provide robust initialization of a registration algorithm (known-component registration, KC-Reg) for 3D localization of spine surgery implants, combining the speed and global support of data-driven approaches with the previously demonstrated accuracy of model-based registration. Methods: The approach uses a Faster R-CNN architecture to detect and localize a broad variety and orientation of spinal pedicle screws in clinical images. Training data were generated using projections from 17 clinical cone-beam CT scans and a library of screw models to simulate implants. Network output was processed to provide screw count and 2D poses. The network was tested on two test datasets of 2,000 images, each depicting real anatomy and realistic spine surgery instrumentation - one dataset involving the same patient data as in the training set (but with different screws, poses, image noise, and affine transformations) and one dataset with five patients unseen in the test data. Assessment of device detection was quantified in terms of accuracy and specificity, and localization accuracy was evaluated in terms of intersection-over-union (IOU) and distance between true and predicted bounding box coordinates. Results: The overall accuracy of pedicle screw detection was ~86.6% (85.3% for the same-patient dataset and 87.8% for the many-patient dataset), suggesting that the screw detection network performed reasonably well irrespective of disparate, complex anatomical backgrounds. The precision of screw detection was ~92.6% (95.0% and 90.2% for the respective same-patient and many-patient datasets). The accuracy of screw localization was within 1.5 mm (median difference of bounding box coordinates), and median IOU exceeded 0.85. For purposes of initializing a 3D-2D registration algorithm, the accuracy was observed to be well within the typical capture range of KC-Reg. Conclusions: Initial evaluation of network performance indicates sufficient accuracy to integrate with algorithms for implant registration, guidance, and verification in spine surgery. Such capability is of potential use in surgical navigation, robotic assistance, and data-intensive analysis of implant placement in large retrospective datasets. Future work includes correspondence of multiple views, 3D localization, screw classification, and expansion of the training dataset to a broader variety of anatomical sites, number of screws, and types of implants.
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.