Abstract Spinal surgery has evolved with the integration of real-time three-dimensional (3D) navigation systems. Conventional techniques based on anatomical landmarks or fluoroscopic guidance are associated with risks of pedicle breach, implant malposition, and neurovascular injury, particularly in complex or high-risk anatomy. Navigation provides real-time multi-planar imaging and instrument tracking, improving intraoperative visualization, accuracy, and safety. This narrative review summarizes the evolution of navigation in spine surgery, from early frame-based stereotactic systems to modern O-arm–based platforms, including integration with robotic and augmented reality technologies. Applications across cervical spine instrumentation, spinal deformity correction, trauma stabilization, minimally invasive spine surgery, revision procedures, osteoporotic spine fixation, spinal tumor surgery, and endoscopic techniques are reviewed. Key literature studies, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and comparative clinical studies, were analyzed to assess accuracy, safety, radiation exposure, and cost. Evidence indicates that navigation-guided techniques improve pedicle screw placement accuracy and facilitate safer instrumentation in complex anatomical settings, while reducing radiation exposure to operating room personnel. Navigation is particularly useful in minimally invasive surgeries, revision surgery, osteoporotic fixation, and oncologic procedures where conventional landmarks are unreliable. However, limitations include increased cost, infrastructure requirements, a learning curve, patient radiation exposure, and susceptibility to registration or reference frame-related errors. Real-time 3D navigation is a valuable adjunct in modern spine surgery, enhancing precision and safety across diverse clinical scenarios. When applied judiciously, it complements surgical expertise, although its limitations must be acknowledged.
Hadgaonkar et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: