Background and Objectives: Advances in virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) technologies have resulted in their increased application across many medical specialties. VR’s main application has been for teaching and preparatory roles, while AR has been mostly used as a surgical adjunct. The objective of this study is to discuss the various applications and prospects for VR, AR, and MR specifically as they relate to spine surgery. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted to examine the current applications of VR, AR, and MR with a focus on spine surgery. A literature search of two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The study quality was assessed using the MERSQI score for educational research studies, QUACS for cadaveric studies, and the JBI critical appraisal tools for clinical studies. Results: A total of 228 articles were identified in the primary literature review. Following title/abstract screening and full-text review, 46 articles were included in the review. These articles comprised nine studies performed in artificial models, nine cadaveric studies, four clinical case studies, nineteen clinical case series, one clinical case–control study, and four clinical parallel control studies. Teaching applications utilizing holographic overlays are the most intensively studied aspect of AR/VR; the most simulated surgical procedure is pedicle screw placement. Conclusions: VR provides a reproducible and robust medium for surgical training through surgical simulations and for patient education through various platforms. Existing AR/MR platforms enhance the accuracy and precision of spine surgeries and show promise as a surgical adjunct.

The accurate and safe positioning of cervical pedicle screws is crucial. While augmented reality (AR) use in spine surgery has previously demonstrated clinical utility in the thoracolumbar spine, its technical feasibility in the cervical spine remains less explored. The objective of this study was to assess the precision and safety of AR-assisted pedicle screw placement in the cervical spine. In this experimental study, five cadaveric cervical spine models were instrumented from C3 to C7 by five different spine surgeons. The navigation accuracy and clinical screw accuracy were evaluated. Post-procedural CT scans were evaluated for clinical accuracy by two independent neuroradiologists using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale. Technical precision was assessed by calculating the angular trajectory (°) and linear screw tip (mm) deviations in the axial and sagittal planes from the virtual pedicle screw position as recorded by the AR-guided platform during the procedure compared to the actual pedicle screw position derived from post-procedural imaging. A total of forty-one pedicle screws were placed in five cervical cadavers, with each of the five surgeons navigating at least seven screws. Gertzbein-Robbins grade of A or B was achieved in 100% of cases. The mean values for tip and trajectory errors in the axial and sagittal planes between the virtual versus actual position of the screws was less than 3 mm and 30°, respectively (p<0.05). None of the cervical screws violated the cortex by more than 2 mm or displaced neurovascular structures. AR-assisted cervical pedicle screw placement in cadavers demonstrated clinical accuracy comparable to existing literature values for image-guided navigation methods for the cervical spine. This study provides technical and clinical accuracy data that supports clinical trialing of AR-assisted subaxial cervical pedicle screw placement.

Study Design: Narrative review. Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly applied to the domain of spine surgery. We present a review of AI in spine surgery, including its use across all stages of the perioperative process and applications for research. We also provide commentary regarding future ethical considerations of AI use and how it may affect surgeon-industry relations. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed articles that examined applications of AI during the pre-, intra-, or postoperative spine surgery process. We also discussed the relationship among AI, spine industry partners, and surgeons. Results: Preoperatively, AI has been mainly applied to image analysis, patient diagnosis and stratification, decision-making. Intraoperatively, AI has been used to aid image guidance and navigation. Postoperatively, AI has been used for outcomes prediction and analysis. AI can enable curation and analysis of huge datasets that can enhance research efforts. Large amounts of data are being accrued by industry sources for use by their AI platforms, though the inner workings of these datasets or algorithms are not well known. Conclusions: AI has found numerous uses in the pre-, intra-, or postoperative spine surgery process, and the applications of AI continue to grow. The clinical applications and benefits of AI will continue to be more fully realized, but so will certain ethical considerations. Making industry-sponsored databases open source, or at least somehow available to the public, will help alleviate potential biases and obscurities between surgeons and industry and will benefit patient care.

Background and Objectives: Augmented reality head-mounted display (AR-HMD) is a novel technology that provides surgeons with a real-time CT-guided 3-dimensional recapitulation of a patient’s spinal anatomy. In this case series, we explore the use of AR-HMD alongside more traditional robotic assistance in surgical spine trauma cases to determine their effect on operative costs and perioperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed trauma patients who underwent pedicle screw placement surgery guided by AR-HMD or robotic-assisted platforms at an academic tertiary care center between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2022. Outcome distributions were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Results: The AR cohort (n = 9) had a mean age of 66 years, BMI of 29.4 kg/m², Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 4.1, and Surgical Invasiveness Index (SII) of 8.8. In total, 77 pedicle screws were placed in this cohort. Intra-operatively, there was a mean blood loss of 378 mL, 0.78 units transfused, 398 min spent in the operating room, and a 20-day LOS. The robotic cohort (n = 13) had a mean age of 56 years, BMI of 27.1 kg/m², CCI of 3.8, and SII of 14.2. In total, 128 pedicle screws were placed in this cohort. Intra-operatively, there was a mean blood loss of 432 mL, 0.46 units transfused units used, 331 min spent in the operating room, and a 10.4-day LOS. No significant difference was found between the two cohorts in any outcome metrics. Conclusions: Although the need to address urgent spinal conditions poses a significant challenge to the implementation of innovative technologies in spine surgery, this study represents an initial effort to show that AR-HMD can yield comparable outcomes to traditional robotic surgical techniques. Moreover, it highlights the potential for AR-HMD to be readily integrated into Level 1 trauma centers without requiring extensive modifications or adjustments.

Background: Nonunion is a rare yet serious complication in pediatric fracture healing that can lead to patient morbidity and economic burden. The administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been associated with an increased risk of fracture nonunion in adults, but data are lacking in the pediatric population. This study examines the relationship between postoperative ketorolac administration and nonunion in operatively managed pediatric long-bone fractures. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with use of TriNetX, a research network that encompasses data from the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. A total of 462,260 patients from 52 health-care organizations met the inclusion criteria. Patients <18 years old with operatively managed upper or lower-extremity long-bone fractures were included. The exposure of interest was ketorolac administration within 30 days postoperatively between 2003 and 2023. Nonunion was identified and verified with use of the pertinent medical codes. Absolute risks and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for both study groups. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: After propensity score matching, 48,778 patients were identified per group. The incidence of nonunion was 2.19% in the ketorolac group and 0.93% in the non-ketorolac group (HR, 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.46, 3.21; p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a higher risk of nonunion in patients with lower-extremity fractures (HR, 3.45; 95% CI: 3.14, 3.75; p < 0.0001) than in those with upper-extremity fractures (HR, 2.11; 95% CI: 1.84, 2.32; p < 0.0001). Among the fracture location subgroups, the greatest HR for nonunion was observed in patients with femoral fractures, followed sequentially by those with tibial and/or fibular fractures, humeral fractures, and radial and/or ulnar fractures. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date to explore postoperative ketorolac use and nonunion in the setting of operatively managed pediatric long-bone fractures. Nonunion in children was rare, occurring in <1% of all included patients. Ketorolac administration was associated with a 2 to 3-fold increase in nonunion risks, with pronounced implications for patients with lower-extremity fractures, particularly those with femoral fractures. Clinicians should weigh the therapeutic advantages of non-opiate analgesia with ketorolac against the risk of nonunion in order to optimize postoperative pain management and recovery. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Study Design: Systematic Review. Objectives: To evaluate which cervical deformity correction technique between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) produces better clinical, radiographic, and operative outcomes. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis comparing studies involving ACDF and ACCF. Adult patients with either original or previously treated cervical spine deformities were included. Two independent reviewers categorized extracted data into clinical, radiographic, and operative outcomes, including complications. Clinical assessments included patient-reported outcomes; radiographic evaluations examined C2-C7 Cobb angle, T1 slope, T1-CL, C2-7 SVA, and graft stability. Surgical measures included surgery duration, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications. Results: 26 studies (25727 patients) met inclusion criteria and were extracted. Of these, 14 studies (19077 patients) with low risk of bias were included in meta-analysis. ACDF and ACCF similarly improve clinical outcomes in terms of JOA and NDI, but ACDF is significantly better at achieving lower VAS neck scores. ACDF is also more advantageous for improving cervical lordosis and minimizing the incidence of graft complications. While there is no significant difference between approaches for most surgical complications, ACDF is favorable for reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay. Conclusions: While both techniques benefit cervical deformity patients, when both techniques are feasible, ACDF may be superior with respect to VAS neck scores, cervical lordosis, graft complications and certain perioperative outcomes. Further studies are recommended to address outcome variability and refine surgical approach selection.