Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New perspectives on surgical accuracy analysis of image-guided bone tumour resection surgery

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Image-guided bone tumour resection surgery has been proved in previous literatures to be more accurate than those conventional freehand ones (p < 0.001). However, in this kind of surgery, there are still many procedures depending on manual operations, which will inevitably introduce surgical errors into the surgery. In particular, the negative surgical errors (i.e., errors toward tumour) would increase the risk of tumor recurrence and metastasis. Thus, the first purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the negative surgical errors of image-guided bone tumour resection surgery were statistically significantly great, the second purpose is to evaluate whether the negative surgical errors of image-guided long-bone tumour resection surgery were statistically equivalent to those of pelvis surgery, and the last purpose is to recommend a solution for suppressing these errors when using a navigation system.

Methods

Negative surgical errors of 24 osteotomies in ten pelvis tumour resection operations and 16 osteotomies in ten long-bone surgeries under the image guidance of a navigation system were statistically evaluated and compared with − 2.0 mm. The equivalence of negative surgical errors of pelvis group and those of long-bone group was statistically tested. To suppress these negative surgical errors when using a navigation system, we recommend, based on the obtained statistics, to increase the margins between cut planes and tumour boundary during pre-operatively planning cut planes, by adding an extra margin with the empirical safe margin according to the absolute lower bound of 95% CI of negative surgical errors.

Results

Negative surgical errors of the pelvis group and the long-bone group were both significantly less than − 2.0 mm (p < 0.001), but not statistically equivalent (Rg > 1 mm). 95% CI of negative surgical errors were from − 3.95 to − 3.27 mm for the pelvis group, and from − 2.69 to − 2.34 mm for the long-bone group. So, the extra margin added for image-guided pelvis tumour resection surgery should be set as 3.95 mm, and the extra margin added for image-guided long-bone surgery should be set as 2.69 mm.

Conclusion

The negative surgical errors of image-guided bone resection surgery were statistically significantly less than − 2.0 mm (p < 0.001), thus these errors cannot be safely ignored. Moreover, the negative surgical errors of the pelvis group were not equivalent to those of the long-bone group (Rg > 1.0 mm), thus the solution for image-guided pelvis tumour resection surgery and that for image-guided long-bone tumour resection surgery should be separately determined. In order to suppress these negative surgical errors when using a navigation system, we recommend to add extra 3.95 mm margin with the empirical safe margin for image-guided pelvis tumour resection surgery and to add extra 2.69 mm margin for image-guided long-bone tumour resection surgery during pre-operatively planning cut planes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mavrogenis AF, Scarlat MM (2019) Surgeons and robots. Int Orthop 43(6):1279–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Li B, Deng Z, Niu X (2018) The accuracy of free hand resection in limb salvage surgery of bone tumours. Int Orthop 42(8):1999–2002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Handels H, Ehrhardt J, Plötz W, Pöppl SJ (2001) Three-dimensional planning and simulation of hip operations and computer-assisted construction of endoprostheses in bone tumor surgery. Computer Aided Surgery 6(2):65–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bast P, Popovic A, Wu T, Heger S, Engelhardt M, Lauer W, Radermacher K, Schmieder K (2006) Robot-and computer-assisted craniotomy: resection planning, implant modelling and robot safety. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 2(2):168–178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Modabber A, Legros C, Rana M, Gerressen M, Riediger D, Ghassemi A (2012) Evaluation of computer-assisted jaw reconstruction with free vascularized fibular flap compared to conventional surgery: a clinical pilot study. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 8(2):215–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wong KC, Kumta SM (2013) Joint-preserving tumor resection and reconstruction using image-guided computer navigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(3):762–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Soleman J, Thieringer F, Beinemann J, Kunz C, Guzman R (2015) Computer-assisted virtual planning and surgical template fabrication for frontoorbital advancement. Neurosurg Focus 38(5):E5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Postl LK, Kirchhoff C, Toepfer A, Kirchhoff S, Schmitt-Sody M, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Burgkart R (2017) Potential accuracy of navigated K-wire guided supra-acetabular osteotomies in orthopedic surgery: a CT fluoroscopy cadaver study. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 13(2):e1752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kelly PD, Zuckerman SL, Yamada Y, Lis E, Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Barzilai O (2019) Image guidance in spine tumor surgery. Neurosurg Rev 2019:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wong KC, Kumta SM, Chiu KH, Antonio GE, Unwin P, Leung KS (2007) Precision tumour resection and reconstruction using image-guided computer navigation. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 89(7): 943–947

  11. So TYC, Lam YL, Mak KL (2010) Computer-assisted navigation in bone tumor surgery: seamless workflow model and evolution of technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(11):2985–2991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cartiaux O, Banse X, Paul L, Francq BG, Aubin CÉ, Docquier PL (2013) Computer-assisted planning and navigation improves cutting accuracy during simulated bone tumor surgery of the pelvis. Computer Aided Surgery 18(1–2):19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bosma SE, Wong KC, Paul L, Gerbers JG, Jutte PC (2018) A cadaveric comparative study on the surgical accuracy of freehand, computer navigation, and patient-specific instruments in joint-preserving bone tumor resections. Sarcoma 2018

  14. Deng Z, Li B, Jin T, Zhang Q, Hao L, Niu X (2018) Accuracy of bony resection under computer assisted navigation compared with free-hand cutting for bone tumors around the knee. The 18th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery 2:43–45

  15. Ritacco LE, Milano FE, Farfalli GL, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Aponte-Tinao LA (2013) Accuracy of 3-D planning and navigation in bone tumor resection. Orthopedics 36(7):e942–e950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) Method for registration of 3-D shapes. Sensor fusion IV: control paradigms and data structures. International Society for Optics and Photonics 1611: 586–607

  17. Royston JP (1982) An extension of Shapiro and Wilk’s W test for normality to large samples. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat 31(2):115–124

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gibbons JD, Chakraborti S (2011) Nonparametric statistical inference. In: Lovric M (ed) International encyclopedia of statistical science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg

  19. Hollander M, Wolfe DA, Chicken E (2015) Nonparametric statistical methods, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Tryon WW, Lewis C (2008) An inferential confidence interval method of establishing statistical equivalence that corrects Tryon’s (2001) reduction factor. Psychol Methods 13(3):272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bergh P, Kindblom LG, Gunterberg B, Remotti F, Ryd W, Meis-Kindblom JM (2000) Prognostic factors in chordoma of the sacrum and mobile spine: a study of 39 patients. Cancer 88:2122–2134

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fuchs B, Dickey ID, Yaszemski MJ, Inwards CY, Sim FH (2005) Operative management of sacral chordoma. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume 87:2211–2216

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wong KC, Kumta SM (2013) Computer-assisted tumor surgery in malignant bone tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(3):750–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cho HS, Kang HG, Kim HS, Han I (2008) Computer-assisted sacral tumor resection. A case report Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume 90: 1561–1566

  25. Jutte PC, Wong KC, Paul L, Gerbers J (2017) Patient specific instruments can achieve a better surgical accuracy than navigation assistance in joint-preserving surgery of the knee joint: a cadaveric comparative study. The 17th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery 1:104–108

Download references

Funding

This study is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61871248.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yu Zhang and Qing Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China

    Yu Zhang, Leisheng Zhong, Lei Qiu & Li Zhang

  2. Department of Orthopedic Oncology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, 100035, China

    Qing Zhang, Lihui Xu, Yang Sun & Xiaohui Niu

Authors
  1. Yu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leisheng Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lei Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lihui Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yang Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xiaohui Niu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Li Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Yu Zhang, Leisheng Zhong, and Lei Qiu evaluated the quantitative surgical errors; Yu Zhang, Qing Zhang, and Leisheng Zhong wrote the article; Lei Qiu and Li Zhang revised the article; Lihui Xu, Yang Sun, Qing Zhang, and Xiaohui Niu performed bone tumor resection surgeries and collected the post-operative data; Xiaohui Niu and Li Zhang were responsible for the correspondence of this article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital proved that the study in this manuscript was performed following the ethical standards in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, the relevant regulations of the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), etc. The copy of the ethical committee approval letter is uploaded with this manuscript. Moreover, all patients consented to their inclusion in the study. The above declarations have been further addressed in the “Patients” section of the submitted manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Zhang, Q., Zhong, L. et al. New perspectives on surgical accuracy analysis of image-guided bone tumour resection surgery. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 44, 987–994 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04539-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04539-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation