Study Design: A prospective, case-based, observational study. Objectives: To investigate how microscope-based augmented reality (AR) support can be utilized in various types of spine surgery. Methods: In 42 spinal procedures (12 intra- and 8 extradural tumors, 7 other intradural lesions, 11 degenerative cases, 2 infections, and 2 deformities) AR was implemented using operating microscope head-up displays (HUDs). Intraoperative low-dose computed tomography was used for automatic registration. Nonlinear image registration was applied to integrate multimodality preoperative images. Target and risk structures displayed by AR were defined in preoperative images by automatic anatomical mapping and additional manual segmentation. Results: AR could be successfully applied in all 42 cases. Low-dose protocols ensured a low radiation exposure for registration scanning (effective dose cervical 0.29 ± 0.17 mSv, thoracic 3.40 ± 2.38 mSv, lumbar 3.05 ± 0.89 mSv). A low registration error (0.87 ± 0.28 mm) resulted in a reliable AR representation with a close matching of visualized objects and reality, distinctly supporting anatomical orientation in the surgical field. Flexible AR visualization applying either the microscope HUD or video superimposition, including the ability to selectively activate objects of interest, as well as different display modes allowed a smooth integration in the surgical workflow, without disturbing the actual procedure. On average, 7.1 ± 4.6 objects were displayed visualizing target and risk structures reliably. Conclusions: Microscope-based AR can be applied successfully to various kinds of spinal procedures. AR improves anatomical orientation in the surgical field supporting the surgeon, as well as it offers a potential tool for education.

OBJECTIVE: Low registration errors are an important prerequisite for reliable navigation, independent of its use in cranial or spinal surgery. Regardless of whether navigation is used for trajectory alignment in biopsy or implant procedures, or for sophisticated augmented reality applications, all depend on a correct registration of patient space and image space. In contrast to fiducial, landmark, or surface matching–based registration, the application of intraoperative imaging allows user-independent automatic patient registration, which is less error prone. The authors’ aim in this paper was to give an overview of their experience using intraoperative CT (iCT) scanning for automatic registration with a focus on registration accuracy and radiation exposure. METHODS: A total of 645 patients underwent iCT scanning with a 32-slice movable CT scanner in combination with navigation for trajectory alignment in biopsy and implantation procedures (n = 222) and for augmented reality (n = 437) in cranial and spine procedures (347 craniotomies and 42 transsphenoidal, 56 frameless stereotactic, 59 frame-based stereotactic, and 141 spinal procedures). The target registration error was measured using skin fiducials that were not part of the registration procedure. The effective dose was calculated by multiplying the dose length product with conversion factors. RESULTS: Among all 1281 iCT scans obtained, 1172 were used for automatic patient registration (645 initial registration scans and 527 repeat iCT scans). The overall mean target registration error was 0.86 ± 0.38 mm (± SD) (craniotomy, 0.88 ± 0.39 mm; transsphenoidal, 0.92 ± 0.39 mm; frameless, 0.74 ± 0.39 mm; frame-based, 0.84 ± 0.34 mm; and spinal, 0.80 ± 0.28 mm). Compared with standard diagnostic scans, a distinct reduction of the effective dose could be achieved using low-dose protocols for the initial registration scan with mean effective doses of 0.06 ± 0.04 mSv for cranial, 0.50 ± 0.09 mSv for cervical, 4.12 ± 2.13 mSv for thoracic, and 3.37 ± 0.93 mSv for lumbar scans without impeding registration accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable automatic patient registration can be achieved using iCT scanning. Low-dose protocols ensured a low radiation exposure for the patient. Low-dose scanning had no negative effect on navigation accuracy.

Background: Mannitol and hypertonic saline are widely used to treat raised intracranial pressure (ICP) after traumatic brain injury (TBI), but the clinical superiority of one over the other has not been demonstrated. Methods: According to the PRISMA statement, this meta-analysis reports on randomized controlled trials investigating hypertonic saline compared with mannitol in the treatment of elevated ICP following TBI. The protocol for the literature searches (Medline, Embase, Central databases), quality assessment, endpoints (mortality, favorable outcome, brain perfusion parameters), and statistical analysis plan (including a trial sequential analysis) were prospectively specified and registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42017057112). Results: A total of 12 randomized controlled trials with 464 patients were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Although there was a nonsignificant trend in favor of hypertonic saline, there were no significant differences in mortality between the 2 treatments (relative risk [RR]: 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45, 1.04; P=0.08). There were also no significant differences in favorable neurological outcome between hypertonic saline (HS) and mannitol (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.90; P=0.23). There was no difference in ICP at 30 to 60 minutes after treatment (mean difference [MD]: −0.19 mm Hg, 95% CI: −0.54, 0.17; P=0.30), whereas ICP was significantly lower after HS compared with mannitol at 90 to 120 minutes (MD: −2.33 mm Hg, 95% CI: −3.17, −1.50; P<0.00001). Cerebral perfusion pressure was higher between 30 to 60 and 90 to 120 minutes after treatment with HS compared with after treatment with mannitol (MD: 5.48 mm Hg, 95% CI: 4.84, 6.12; P<0.00001 and 9.08 mm Hg, 95% CI: 7.54, 10.62; P<0.00001, respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that the number of cases was insufficient to produce reliable statements on long-term outcomes. Conclusion: There are indications that HS might be superior to mannitol in the treatment of TBI-related raised ICP. However, there are insufficient data to reach a definitive conclusion, and further studies are warranted.

Object: Venous ophthalmodynamometry is a technique used to register the pressure within the central retinal vein. Because the outflow of the central retinal vein is exposed to the intracranial pressure (ICP), the pressure of the central retinal vein may be correlated with the ICP. In the absence of adequate statistical evidence, the authors compared the pressure of the central retinal vein with results of simultaneous invasive monitoring of ICP in neurosurgical patients. Methods: The pressure within the central retinal vein was recorded in 102 patients, in whom invasive continuous monitoring of ICP had become necessary for various reasons, mostly because of suspected hydrocephalus and intracranial hemorrhage. Results: A highly significant correlation of the pressure in the central retinal vein and the intracranial cavity was confirmed statistically. An increased pressure of the central retinal vein indicated an elevated ICP, with a probability of 84.2%, whereas a normal pressure of the central retinal vein indicated a normal ICP in 92.8% of patients. Conclusions: Venous ophthalmodynamometry is a valuable technique for the noninvasive assessment of ICP.