Does Freehand, Patient-specific Instrumentation or Surgical Navigation Perform Better for Allograft Reconstruction
Harley H L Chan1,2, Prakash Nayak3, Ibrahim Alshaygy4
1Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Background:
Joint-sparing resection of periarticular bone tumors can be challenging because of complex geometry. Successful reconstruction of periarticular bone defects after tumor resection is often performed with structural allografts to allow for joint preservation. However, achieving a size-matched allograft to fill the defect can be challenging because allograft sizes vary, they do not always match a patient's anatomy, and cutting the allograft to perfectly fit the defect is demanding.
Questions/Purposes:
(1) Is there a difference in mental workload among the freehand, patient-specific instrumentation, and surgical navigation approaches? (2) Is there a difference in conformance (quantitative measure of deviation from the ideal bone graft), elapsed time during reconstruction, and qualitative assessment of goodness-of-fit of the allograft reconstruction among the approaches?
Methods:
Seven surgeons used three modalities in the same order (freehand, patient-specific instrumentation, and surgical navigation) to fashion synthetic bone to reconstruct a standardized bone defect. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) mental task load index questionnaires and procedure time were captured. Cone-beam CT images of the shaped allografts were used to measure conformance (quantitative measure of deviation from the ideal bone graft) to a computer-generated ideal bone graft model. Six additional (senior) surgeons blinded to modality scored the quality of fit of the allografts into the standardized tumor defect using a 10-point Likert scale. We measured conformance using the root-mean-square metric in mm and used ANOVA for multipaired comparisons (p < 0.05 was significant).
Results:
There was no difference in mental NASA total task load scores among the freehand, patient-specific instrumentation, and surgical navigation techniques. We found no difference in conformance root-mean-square values (mean ± SD) between surgical navigation (2 ± 0 mm; mean values have been rounded to whole numbers) and patient-specific instrumentation (2 ± 1 mm), but both showed a small improvement compared with the freehand approach (3 ± 1 mm). For freehand versus surgical navigation, the mean difference was 1 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5 to 1.1; p = 0.01). For freehand versus patient-specific instrumentation, the mean difference was 1 mm (95% CI -0.1 to 0.9; p = 0.02). For patient-specific instrumentation versus surgical navigation, the mean difference was 0 mm (95% CI -0.5 to 0.2; p = 0.82). In evaluating the goodness of fit of the shaped grafts, we found no clinically important difference between surgical navigation (median [IQR] 7 [6 to 8]) and patient-specific instrumentation (median 6 [5 to 7.8]), although both techniques had higher scores than the freehand technique did (median 3 [2 to 4]). For freehand versus surgical navigation, the difference of medians was 4 (p < 0.001). For freehand versus patient-specific instrumentation, the difference of medians was 3 (p < 0.001). For patient-specific instrumentation versus surgical navigation, the difference of medians was 1 (p = 0.03). The mean ± procedural times for freehand was 16 ± 10 minutes, patient-specific instrumentation was 14 ± 9 minutes, and surgical navigation techniques was 24 ± 8 minutes. We found no differences in procedure times across three shaping modalities (freehand versus patient-specific instrumentation: mean difference 2 minutes [95% CI 0 to 7]; p = 0.92; freehand versus surgical navigation: mean difference 8 minutes [95% CI 0 to 20]; p = 0.23; patient-specific instrumentation versus surgical navigation: mean difference 10 minutes [95% CI 1 to 19]; p = 0.12).
Conclusion:
Based on surgical simulation to reconstruct a standardized periarticular bone defect after tumor resection, we found a possible small advantage to surgical navigation over patient-specific instrumentation based on qualitative fit, but both techniques provided slightly better conformance of the shaped graft for fit into the standardized post-tumor resection bone defect than the freehand technique did. To determine whether these differences are clinically meaningful requires further study. The surgical navigation system presented here is a product of laboratory research development, and although not ready to be widely deployed for clinical practice, it is currently being used in a research operating room setting for patient care. This new technology is associated with a learning curve, capital costs, and potential risk. The reported preliminary results are based on a preclinical synthetic bone tumor study, which is not as realistic as actual surgical scenarios.
Clinical Relevance:
Surgical navigation systems are an emerging technology in orthopaedic and reconstruction surgery, and understanding their capabilities and limitations is paramount for clinical practice. Given our preliminary findings in a small cohort study with one scenario of standardized synthetic periarticular bone tumor defects, future investigations should include different surgical scenarios using allograft and cadaveric specimens in a more realistic surgical setting.
