title: Kyphoplasty: Traditional imaging compared with computer-guided intervention-time to rethink technique?
abstract: METHODS
  Equivalence trial (IRB not required for cadaveric studies).
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare computer-guided and fluoroscopic kyphoplasty. Factors of interest were radiation exposure, position of cannula within pedicles and procedure time.
  
  
  METHODS
  Kyphoplasty was performed on two cadavers. Computer-navigated, cross-sectional images from a cone-beam CT were used for one and fluoroscopic imaging for the other. In each, T6-9 and T11-L2 vertebrae were selected. For both imaging methods, anteroposterior and lateral x-rays were taken. Radiation exposure for both procedures was measured by four dosimeters. Procedure time, radiation to surgeon and cadaver, and position of cannula placement within pedicles were recorded. The surgeon wore one under the lead gown, another on the lead gown at shoulder level, and a third as a ring on the dominant hand. A dosimeter was also placed on the cadaver.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The radiation from the cone-beam, computer-guided imaging system was 0.0 mrem to the surgeon and 0.52 rads to the cadaver. Using fluoroscopic imaging, surgeon's and cadaver's exposure was 5 mrem and 0.047 rads, respectively. Procedure times were similar and neither device resulted in cannula malposition.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Cone-beam CT appears as accurate as the fluoroscopy; radiation exposure to the surgeon is eliminated, and radiation levels to the patient are acceptable.
authors.affiliation: Florida State University, College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Michael P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Silverstein
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Mac Millan
authors.forename: Isador H
authors.initials: IH
authors.lastname: Lieberman
references.citation: Neurosurg Focus. 2005 Mar 15;18(3):e3
references.pmid: 15771393
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jul 15;26(14):1631-8
references.pmid: 11464159
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 1;31(19):2213-20
references.pmid: 16946656
references.citation: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008 Apr;21(2):96-100
references.pmid: 18391712
references.citation: Spine J. 2006 Sep-Oct;6(5):479-87
references.pmid: 16934715
references.citation: Orthopedics. 2009 Feb;32(2):90
references.pmid: 19301801
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2007 Aug;16(8):1085-100
references.pmid: 17277923
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 1989 May;129(5):1000-11
references.pmid: 2784934
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2004 Oct;13(6):496-501
references.pmid: 15083353