Evaluation of an Ultrasound-Based Navigation System for Spine Neurosurgery: A Porcine Cadaver Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background With the growing incidence of patients receiving surgical treatment for spinal metastatic tumours, there is a need for developing cost-efficient and radiation-free alternatives for spinal interventions. In this paper, we evaluate the capabilities and limitations of an image-guided neurosurgery (IGNS) system that uses intraoperative ultrasound (iUS) imaging for guidance. Methods Using a lumbosacral section of a porcine cadaver, we explored the impact of CT image resolution, ultrasound depth and ultrasound frequency on system accuracy, robustness and effectiveness. Preoperative CT images with an isotropic resolution of , and were acquired. During surgery, vertebrae L1 to L6 were exposed. For each vertebra, five iUS scans were acquired using two depth parameters (5 cm and 7 cm) and two frequencies (6 MHz and 12 MHz). A total of 120 acquisition trials were evaluated. Ultrasound-based registration performance is compared to the standard alignment procedure using intraoperative CT. We report target registration error (TRE) and computation time. In addition, the scans’ trajectories were analyzed to identify vertebral regions that provide the most relevant features for the alignment. Results For all acquisitions, the median TRE ranged from 1.42 mm to 1.58 mm and the overall computation time was 9.04 s ± 1.58 s. Fourteen out of 120 iUS acquisitions (11.66%) yielded a level-to-level mismatch (and these are included in the accuracy measurements reported). No significant effect on accuracy was found with CT resolution ( F (2,10) = 1.70, p = 0.232), depth ( F (1,5) = 0.22, p = 0.659) nor frequency ( F (1,5) = 1.02, p = 0.359). While misalignment increases linearly with the distance from the imaged vertebra, accuracy was satisfactory for directly adjacent levels. A significant relationship was found between iUS scan coverage of laminae and articular processes, and accuracy. Conclusion Intraoperative ultrasound can be used for spine surgery neuronavigation. We demonstrated that the IGNS system yield acceptable accuracy and high efficiency compared to the standard CT-based navigation procedure. The flexibility of the iUS acquisitions can have repercussions on the system performance, which are not fully identified. Further investigation is needed to understand the relationship between iUS acquisition and alignment performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".