Intraoperative image guidance for endoscopic spine surgery

Introduction

The minimally invasive surgery (MIS) movement has revolutionized virtually all surgical specialties, including spine surgery. The goals of providing equivalent or better outcomes compared to conventional open surgery, while minimizing soft tissue disruption, blood loss, postoperative pain, recovery time, and time to return to normal activities is appealing to both surgeons and patients alike. In addition, the potential for reduction in cost-of-care has enormous implications for the economics of health care delivery (1). Today endoscopy within spine surgery is utilized to treat multiple degenerative pathologies including foraminal stenosis, disc herniation, and even assisting with end-plate preparation for fusion (2,3). As the tubular MIS approach removed the need to perform a painful subperiosteal dissection, the full percutaneous endoscopic technique allows surgeons to avoid potentially destabilizing laminotomy and medial facetectomy for appropriately selected pathologies (4).

Such benefits are not gained without overcoming challenges however. The learning curve for endoscopic spine surgery is steep, stemming in part from the need for highly accurate localization given the critical nearby neurologic structures. Several studies have attempted to quantify this learning curve with results ranging between 10 to 72 surgeries in order to achieve stable proficiency (5,6). While localization is not the only contributing factor to the learning curve, it stands to reason that the advancement of intraoperative image guidance for localization could improve the technique’s learning curve and make spinal endoscopy more accessible.

Classically, percutaneous endoscopic access for lumbar discectomy is achieved via navigation of a spinal needle under fluoroscopic guidance to the area of interest, as discussed in the first section below. Advances in image guidance, paralleling the development of advanced image guidance techniques for the placement of spinal instrumentation, are now opening the doors to new methods of real-time localization. This article will review these techniques and their current support within the literature.

Fluoroscopic guidance

The advent of modern endoscopic surgery was made possible by the description of a safe working corridor to the disc space via the neural foramen by Parvis Kambin. This corridor, now referred to as “Kambin’s triangle,” is composed of four distinct anatomic structures: the exiting nerve root anteriorly, the superior articular process posteriorly, the thecal sac and traversing nerve root medially, and the superior end-plate of the inferior vertebral body inferiorly (Figure 1) (7-9).

Figure 1 Kambin’s triangle is a 3D space bounded anteriorly by the exiting nerve root, posteriorly by the superior articular process of the caudal vertebrae, medially by the thecal sac and traversing nerve root, and inferiorly by the superior end-plate of the caudal vertebrae.

Understanding the confines of this “safe” working zone lead to the development of novel surgical techniques such as transforaminal endoscopic discectomy which we will focus upon here. These techniques rely heavily upon fluoroscopic guidance to ensure appropriate localization (10,11). In this regard, the two most important structures to be avoided during access are the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and the exiting nerve root rostrally, and the thecal sac medially (12,13). Additionally, the angle of approach is critical, and it must be tailored individually to allow access to the pathology being targeted. The approach must also consider the level of the pathology, as previous research has demonstrated a decrease in foraminal height and diameter when moving caudally throughout the lumbar spine (14).

Finally, before discussing appropriate landmarks for fluoroscopic localization, we must decide where the inner working of the endoscopic cannula should be docked. Specifically, one must decide whether to dock the cannula within the disc space or outside of the disc space, at the level of the annulus. These two approaches are often discussed as the “inside out” and “outside in” approaches, respectively (15-19). While there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach, many contemporary endoscopic practitioners utilize the “outside-in” technique and we will focus on this approach for the purposes of this discussion (15,20-22).

Considering each of these points collectively, we can establish some basic principles for endoscopic localization using the “outside-in” technique: (I) the safe working corridor is within Kambin’s triangle (II) the maximum depth of the working cannula should be just superficial to the disc space at the level of the annulus (III) the working cannula should not be so medial as to jeopardize the descending nerve root or thecal sac but not so lateral as to be outside the foramen, and (IV) the angulation of the approach should be such that injury to the DRG is minimized while surgical exposure is maximized. These principles have guided the modern technique for approaching a transforaminal discectomy.

Based on these principles, the skin entry point for a percutaneous endoscopic discectomy is generally 8–14 cm off midline laterally and guided by preoperative imaging (23,24). Both the starting point and angle of approach will be guided by the pathology being treated, with a steeper approach for far lateral herniations and a more shallow approach for more midline herniations (13,25). The needle is advanced with the goal of docking at the level of the disc space rostro-caudally, at the edge of the posterior vertebral line on lateral fluoroscopy, and approximately at the mid-pedicular line on AP fluoroscopy (Figure 2) (23,24). Needless to say the laterality of this docking point can also be adjusted based on pathology, and may range anywhere from the lateral pedicular line to the medial pedicular line (13).

Figure 2 AP and lateral fluoroscopy demonstrating fluoroscopic guided localization of the disc space through Kambin’s triangle. Ideally the needle should be at the mid-pedicular line on AP fluoroscopy and at the posterior vertebral line on lateral fluoroscopy. All figures submitted are original and prepared specifically for this submission.

However, in addition to a detailed understanding of fluoroscopic localization, the use of local, rather than general anesthesia is critical to the safe completion of this procedure (26). While there are a myriad of reasons to avoid general anesthesia when possible, the use of sedation and local anesthetic without intubation or deep sedation is especially appealing in endoscopic spine surgery. Specifically, the performance of endoscopic spine surgery without general analgesia allows for immediate and direct patient feedback throughout the surgery (16,26). If a patient begins to have significant radicular pain during the surgery, this likely indicates close proximity to critical neural elements. This feedback should be viewed as synergistic with fluoroscopic localization in minimizing injury to the neural elements.

3-D computed tomography navigation

3-D CT navigation technology is widely used for the placement of spinal implants in both open and minimally invasive spine procedures. CT navigation allows for real-time visualization of the spinal anatomy in the axial, coronal, and sagittal planes and is associated with increased accuracy of pedicle screw placement, while potentially decreasing radiation exposure (27,28). An emphasis on obtaining the utmost accuracy lends this technology well to spinal endoscopy, which hinges on absolute accuracy and precision in localization. This fact is a major contributor to the steep learning curve associated with spinal endoscopy (6). Regardless of its potential for benefit, the literature contains only a handful of accounts of the combination of 3-D CT navigation with percutaneous endoscopic discectomy (29-31).

With respect to the lumbar spine, the largest published account is a prospective cohort study of 118 patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) utilizing either 3-D CT navigation (O-arm, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) or conventional fluoroscopic guidance (30). The surgical technique for the navigation group involves affixing a reference frame to the contralateral iliac crest, followed by an intraoperative O-arm scan, and finally registration of that scan to the spinal anatomy and surgical instruments. Utilizing real-time navigation, the appropriate trajectory through Kambin’s triangle may be planned and executed upon. In addition, fully navigable instruments provide for the ability to perform foraminoplasty under live navigation. Once the endoscope is brought into the operative field, the remainder of the procedure proceeds in the typical fashion under endoscopic visualization. Mean operative times and radiation exposure times were significantly decreased in cases utilizing navigation as compared to fluoroscopy. Perhaps more importantly, navigation was associated with a significant improvement in the associated learning curve with an estimated 13 cases required to gain stable proficiency with regard to operative time, compared to 32 cases in the fluoroscopy cohort. One study by Zhang et al. has explored value of 3-D CT navigation in posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy and discectomy (31). This retrospective review of 42 patients undergoing O-arm navigated percutaneous endoscopic cervical foraminotomy with or without discectomy resulted in significant improvements in patient reported clinical outcome measures without complication nor the need to convert to open decompression. In similar fashion to the aforementioned technique described by Ao et al., real-time navigation is used to precisely identify the skin entry point and trajectory to the laminofacet junction of interest. After docking the endoscopic working cannula, the procedure also proceeds under endoscopic visualization.

Robotic guidance

Robotically-guided endoscopic spine surgery remains in its earliest infancy at the time of this publication, but it is predicated on the same core principles as intraoperative navigation. These include, but are not limited to, improved overall accuracy of localization, tempered learning curve, and reduced radiation exposure. Unique to robotics however is the overarching goal to establish consistency and reproducibility amongst surgical techniques, in order to standardize surgical work flow. As expected, the published literature on this topic is minimal at the present time.

Liounakos et al. describe the utilization of robotic guidance for minimally invasive endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (32). In addition to guiding pedicle cannulation for percutaneous pedicle screw placement, the robotic guidance system (Mazor X, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) allows the surgeon to plan multiple access trajectories to the disc space through Kambin’s triangle for endoscopic discectomy, end-plate preparation, and expandable interbody delivery. Multiple trajectories may be planned and quickly toggled between, evaluating each with triggered electromyography in order to determine the most ideal trajectory. Following this decision, a guide wire is left in the neural foramen abutting the disc annulus and endoscopic discectomy proceeds. Utilizing a previous generation robotic platform (Renaissance, Mazor Robotics Inc., Caesarea, Israel), Kolcun et al. described another instance of robotic-guidance for disc space targeting for endoscopy, this time for the purpose of disc biopsy, culture, and washout for thoracic discitis (33). Next generation robotic platforms with integrated real-time navigation capabilities may serve to further refine these applications in minimally invasive spine surgery.

Conclusions

Endoscopic spine surgery is rapidly gaining traction as an alternative to traditional minimally invasive spine surgery techniques. Moreover, advancements in both endoscopic surgical applications and image-guidance and navigation are occurring in parallel. Currently the most tried-and-true method of image-guidance is fluoroscopy. However, as more surgeons adopt both endoscopy and real-time image guidance and navigation into their practice, we are likely to see a more fluid combination of these technologies. Current limitations to both 3-D CT and robotic image-guidance systems include the need for a reference array, or the robot itself, to be rigidly mounted to the patient. As it is ideal to perform endoscopic procedures under local analgesia in order to take advantage of patient feedback during the procedure, any patient movement in addition to pain from reference array placement poses an issue. While not currently validated in the scientific literature, electromagnetic tracking navigation may provide one solution to this. To be sure, high quality research studies evaluating each of these techniques will be necessary in order to validate these new and exciting technologies.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Roberto Suazo for his support with figure production.

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the Guest Editor (Dr. Sheeraz Qureshi) for the series “Current State of Intraoperative Imaging” published in Annals of Translational Medicine. The article was sent for external peer review organized by the Guest Editor and the editorial office.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-1119). The series “Current State of Intraoperative Imaging” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. MYW reports personal fees from Depuy-Synthes Spine, personal fees from Spineology, personal fees from Stryker, personal fees from Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, personal fees from Springer Publishing, personal fees from Quality Medical Publishing, personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Globus Medical, other from Innovative Surgical Devices, other from Medical Device Partners, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Wang MY, Chang HK, Grossman J. Reduced Acute Care Costs With the ERAS(R) Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared With Conventional Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Neurosurgery 2018;83:827-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Kolcun JPG, Brusko GD, Basil GW, et al. Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion without general anesthesia: operative and clinical outcomes in 100 consecutive patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 2019;46:E14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Vaishnav AS, Othman YA, Virk SS, et al. Current state of minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg 2019;5:S2-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Kim CW. Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:S281-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Hsu HT, Chang SJ, Yang SS, et al. Learning curve of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Eur Spine J 2013;22:727-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Morgenstern R, Morgenstern C, Yeung AT. The learning curve in foraminal endoscopic discectomy: experience needed to achieve a 90% success rate. SAS J 2007;1:100-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Kambin P, Zhou L. Arthroscopic discectomy of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997.49-57. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Hoshide R, Feldman E, Taylor W. Cadaveric Analysis of the Kambin's Triangle. Cureus 2016;8:e475. [PubMed]
9. Tumialan LM, Madhavan K, Godzik J, et al. The History of and Controversy over Kambin's Triangle: A Historical Analysis of the Lumbar Transforaminal Corridor for Endoscopic and Surgical Approaches. World Neurosurg 2019;123:402-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Fan G, Guan X, Zhang H, et al. Significant Improvement of Puncture Accuracy and Fluoroscopy Reduction in Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy With Novel Lumbar Location System: Preliminary Report of Prospective Hello Study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e2189. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Ahn Y, Kim CH, Lee JH, et al. Radiation exposure to the surgeon during percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:617-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Vialle E, Vialle LR, Contreras W, et al. Anatomical study on the relationship between the dorsal root ganglion and the intervertebral disc in the lumbar spine. Rev Bras Ortop 2015;50:450-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Ahn Y. Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical tips to prevent complications. Expert Rev Med Devices 2012;9:361-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Hurday Y, Xu B, Guo L, et al. Radiographic measurement for transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic approach (PELD). Eur Spine J 2017;26:635-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Lewandrowski KU. "Outside-in" technique, clinical results, and indications with transforaminal lumbar endoscopic surgery: a retrospective study on 220 patients on applied radiographic classification of foraminal spinal stenosis. Int J Spine Surg 2014;8:26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Yeung AT, Tsou PM. Posterolateral endoscopic excision for lumbar disc herniation: Surgical technique, outcome, and complications in 307 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:722-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Choi G, Lee SH, Bhanot A, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy for extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations: extraforaminal targeted fragmentectomy technique using working channel endoscope. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:E93-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Lew SM, Mehalic TF, Fagone KL. Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of far-lateral and foraminal lumbar disc herniations. J Neurosurg 2001;94:216-20. [PubMed]
19. Kim HS, Adsul N, Kapoor A, et al. A Mobile Outside-in Technique of Transforaminal Lumbar Endoscopy for Lumbar Disc Herniations. J Vis Exp 2018. [Crossref] [PubMed]
20. Jasper GP, Francisco GM, Telfeian AE. Clinical success of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy with foraminotomy: a retrospective evaluation. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2013;115:1961-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
21. Jasper GP, Francisco GM, Telfeian AE. Endoscopic transforaminal discectomy for an extruded lumbar disc herniation. Pain Physician 2013;16:E31-5. [PubMed]
22. Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Ha SS, et al. Foraminoplastic Superior Vertebral Notch Approach with Reamers in Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Technical Note and Clinical Outcome in Limited Indications of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2016;59:172-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Ahn Y, Lee SH, Park WM, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and prognostic factors of 43 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:E326-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
24. Tzaan WC. Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Chang Gung Med J 2007;30:226-34. [PubMed]
25. Jang JS, An SH, Lee SH. Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:338-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
26. Kambin P, Brager MD. Percutaneous posterolateral discectomy. Anatomy and mechanism. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987.145-54. [PubMed]
27. Feng W, Wang W, Chen S, et al. O-arm navigation versus C-arm guidance for pedicle screw placement in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2020;44:919-26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. Vaishnav AS, Merrill R, Sandhu H, et al. A Review of Techniques, Time-demand, Radiation Exposure and Outcomes of Skin-anchored Intra-operative 3D Navigation in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2020;45:E465-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
29. Oyelese A, Telfeian AE, Gokaslan ZL, et al. Intraoperative Computed Tomography Navigational Assistance for Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression of Heterotopic Foraminal Bone Formation After Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion. World Neurosurg 2018;115:29-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
30. Ao S, Wu J, Tang Y, et al. Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Assisted by O-Arm-Based Navigation Improves the Learning Curve. Biomed Res Int 2019;2019:6509409. [Crossref] [PubMed]
31. Zhang C, Wu J, Xu C, et al. Minimally Invasive Full-Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Assisted by O-Arm-Based Navigation. Pain Physician 2018;21:E215-23. [PubMed]
32. Liounakos JI, Wang MY. Lumbar 3-Lumbar 5 Robotic-Assisted Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: 2-Dimensional Operative Video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2020;19:E73-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
33. Kolcun JPG, Wang MY. Endoscopic Treatment of Thoracic Discitis with Robotic Access: A Case Report Merging Two Cutting-Edge Technologies. World Neurosurg 2019;126:418-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]