REFERENCES
1. Weiss AJ, Elixhauser A, Andrews RM. Characteristics of operating room procedures in U.S. hospitals, 2011. In: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2006. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24716251/ [accessed 16 April 2026].
2. Martin BI, Mirza SK, Spina N, Spiker WR, Lawrence B, Brodke DS. Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs for degenerative spinal diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015. Spine 2019;44:369-76.
3. Philipp LR, Leibold A, Mahtabfar A, Montenegro TS, Gonzalez GA, Harrop JS. Achieving value in spine surgery: 10 major cost contributors. Global Spine J 2021;11:14S-22S.
4. Mascagni P, Alapatt D, Sestini L, et al. Computer vision in surgery: from potential to clinical value. NPJ Digit Med 2022;5:163.
5. Maier-Hein L, Wagner M, Ross T, et al. Heidelberg colorectal data set for surgical data science in the sensor operating room. Sci Data 2021;8:101.
6. Zia A, Berniker M, Nespolo RG, et al. Intuitive surgical SurgToolLoc challenge results: 2022-2023. arXiv 2023;arXiv:2305.07152. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07152 [accessed 16 April 2026].
7. Wybier M, Bossard P. Musculoskeletal imaging in progress: the EOS imaging system. Joint Bone Spine 2013;80:238-43.
8. Santiago F, Láinez Ramos-Bossini AJ, Wáng YXJ, Martínez Barbero JP, García Espinosa J, Martínez Martínez A. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the study of spinal disorders. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2022;12:3947-86.
9. Chai J, Zeng H, Li A, Ngai EW. Deep learning in computer vision: a critical review of emerging techniques and application scenarios. Mach Learn Appl 2021;6:100134.
10. Han K, Wang Y, Chen H, et al. A survey on vision transformer. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2023;45:87-110.
11. Esteva A, Chou K, Yeung S, et al. Deep learning-enabled medical computer vision. NPJ Digit Med 2021;4:5.
12. Minaee S, Boykov Y, Porikli F, Plaza A, Kehtarnavaz N, Terzopoulos D. Image segmentation using deep learning: a survey. arXiv 2020;arXiv:2001.05566. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.05566 [accessed 16 April 2026].
13. Zhou N, Wen H, Wang Y, Liu Y, Zhou L. Review of deep learning models for spine segmentation. In: Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval; 2022 Jun 27-30; Newark, NJ, USA. New York: ACM; 2022. pp. 498-507.
14. Bhairnallykar ST, Narawade V. Exploration of image segmentation: a comprehensive review of traditional segmentation techniques. In: 2023 7th International Conference on Electronics, Materials Engineering & Nano-Technology (IEMENTech); 2023 Dec 18-20; Kolkata, India. New York: IEEE; 2023. pp. 1-6.
15. Zamora G, Sari-Sarraf H, Long LR. Hierarchical segmentation of vertebrae from X-ray images. In: Sonka M, Fitzpatrick JM, Editors. Medical Imaging 2003: Image Processing; 2003; San Diego, CA, USA. Bellingham: SPIE; 2003.
16. Koompairojn S, Hua KA, Bhadrakom C. Automatic classification system for lumbar spine X-ray images. In: 19th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS’06); 2006 Jun 22-23; Salt Lake City, UT, USA. New York: IEEE; 2006. pp. 213-8.
17. Lecron F, Benjelloun M, Mahmoudi S. Cervical spine mobility analysis on radiographs: a fully automatic approach. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2012;36:634-42.
18. Li Y, Liang W, Zhang Y, An H, Tan J. Automatic lumbar vertebrae detection based on feature fusion deep learning for partial occluded C-arm X-ray images. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2016;2016:647-50.
19. Al Arif SMMR, Knapp K, Slabaugh G. Fully automatic cervical vertebrae segmentation framework for X-ray images. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2018;157:95-111.
20. Cho BH, Kaji D, Cheung ZB, et al. Automated measurement of lumbar lordosis on radiographs using machine learning and computer vision. Global Spine J 2020;10:611-8.
21. Shin Y, Han K, Lee YH. Temporal trends in cervical spine curvature of South Korean adults assessed by deep learning system segmentation, 2006-2018. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2020961.
22. Kim KC, Cho HC, Jang TJ, Choi JM, Seo JK. Automatic detection and segmentation of lumbar vertebrae from X-ray images for compression fracture evaluation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2021;200:105833.
23. Chen Y, Mo Y, Readie A, et al. VertXNet: an ensemble method for vertebral body segmentation and identification from cervical and lumbar spinal X-rays. Sci Rep 2024;14:3341.
24. Bertels J, Eelbode T, Berman M, et al. Optimizing the Dice score and Jaccard index for medical image segmentation: theory and practice. In: Shen D, Liu T, Peters TM, Staib LH, Essert C, Zhou S, Yap PT, Khan A, Editors. Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2019; 2019 Oct 13-17; Shenzhen, China. Cham: Springer; 2019. pp. 92-100.
25. Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T. U-Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. arXiv 2015;arXiv:1505.04597. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04597 [accessed 16 April 2026].
26. Janssens R, Zeng G, Zheng G. Fully automatic segmentation of lumbar vertebrae from CT images using cascaded 3D Fully Convolutional Networks. arXiv 2017;arXiv:1712.01509. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01509 [accessed 16 April 2026].
27. Lessmann N, van Ginneken B, de Jong PA, Išgum I. Iterative fully convolutional neural networks for automatic vertebra segmentation and identification. Med Image Anal 2019;53:142-55.
28. Sekuboyina A, Husseini ME, Bayat A, et al. VerSe: a Vertebrae labelling and segmentation benchmark for multi-detector CT images. Med Image Anal 2021;73:102166.
29. Payer C, Štern D, Bischof H, Urschler M. Coarse to fine vertebrae localization and segmentation with SpatialConfiguration-net and U-net. In: Farinella GM, Radeva P, Braz J, Editors. Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications; 2020 Feb 27-29; Valletta, Malta. Setúbal: SciTePress; 2020. pp. 124-33.
30. Tao R, Liu W, Zheng G. Spine-transformers: vertebra labeling and segmentation in arbitrary field-of-view spine CTs via 3D transformers. Med Image Anal 2022;75:102258.
31. van der Graaf JW, van Hooff ML, Buckens CFM, et al. Lumbar spine segmentation in MR images: a dataset and a public benchmark. Sci Data 2024;11:264.
32. Zhang Z, Liu T, Fan G, et al. SpineMamba: enhancing 3D spinal segmentation in clinical imaging through residual visual Mamba layers and shape priors. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2025;123:102531.
33. Liebl H, Schinz D, Sekuboyina A, et al. A computed tomography vertebral segmentation dataset with anatomical variations and multi-vendor scanner data. Sci Data 2021;8:284.
34. Sa R, Owens W, Wiegand R, et al. Intervertebral disc detection in X-ray images using faster R-CNN. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2017;2017:564-7.
35. Lemay A, Gros C, Zhuo Z, et al. Automatic multiclass intramedullary spinal cord tumor segmentation on MRI with deep learning. Neuroimage Clin 2021;31:102766.
36. Li X, Hong Y, Xu Y, Hu M. VerFormer: vertebrae-aware transformer for automatic spine segmentation from CT images. Diagnostics 2024;14:1859.
37. Kirillov A, Mintun E, Ravi N, et al. Segment anything. arXiv 2023;arXiv:2304.02643. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02643 [accessed 16 April 2026].
38. Ma J, He Y, Li F, Han L, You C, Wang B. Segment anything in medical images. Nat Commun 2024;15:654.
39. Seoud L, Adankon MM, Labelle H, Dansereau J, Cheriet F. Prediction of scoliosis curve type based on the analysis of trunk surface topography. In: 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro; 2010 Apr 14-17; Rotterdam, Netherlands. New York: IEEE; 2010. pp. 408-11.
40. Lin Y, Zhou H, Ma K, Yang X, Zheng Y. Seg4Reg networks for automated spinal curvature estimation. In: Cai Y, Wang L, Audette M, Zheng G, Li S, Editors. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop and Challenge on Computational Methods and Clinical Applications for Spine Imaging, CSI 2019; 2019 Oct 17; Shenzhen, China. Cham: Springer; 2020. pp. 69-74.
41. Chen K, Peng C, Li Y, Cheng D, Wei S. Accurate automated keypoint detections for spinal curvature estimation. In: Cai Y, Wang L, Audette M, Zheng G, Li S, Editors. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop and Challenge on Computational Methods and Clinical Applications for Spine Imaging, CSI 2019; 2019 Oct 17; Shenzhen, China. Cham: Springer; 2020. pp. 63-8.
42. Dubost F, Collery B, Renaudier A, et al. Automated estimation of the spinal curvature via spine centerline extraction with ensembles of cascaded neural networks. In: Cai Y, Wang L, Audette M, Zheng G, Li S, Editors. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop and Challenge on Computational Methods and Clinical Applications for Spine Imaging, CSI 2019; 2019 Oct 17; Shenzhen, China. Cham: Springer; 2020. pp. 88-94.
43. Lin Y, Liu L, Ma K, Zheng Y. Seg4Reg+: consistency learning between spine segmentation and Cobb angle regression. arXiv 2022;arXiv:2208.12462. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.12462 [accessed 16 April 2026].
44. Alukaev D, Kiselev S, Mustafaev T, Ainur A, Ibragimov B, Vrtovec T. A deep learning framework for vertebral morphometry and Cobb angle measurement with external validation. Eur Spine J 2022;31:2115-24.
45. Chen K, Stotter C, Klestil T, Mitterer JA, Lepenik C, Nehrer S. Fully automated measurement of Cobb angles in coronal plane spine radiographs. J Clin Med 2024;13:4122.
46. Orosz LD, Bhatt FR, Jazini E, et al. Novel artificial intelligence algorithm: an accurate and independent measure of spinopelvic parameters. J Neurosurg Spine 2022;37:893-901.
47. Harake ES, Linzey JR, Jiang C, et al. Development and validation of an artificial intelligence model to accurately predict spinopelvic parameters. J Neurosurg Spine 2024;41:88-96.
48. Joshi RS, Harake ES, Jiang C, et al. Validation of a novel artificial intelligence model (SpinePose) to automatically and accurately predict spinopelvic parameters using scoliosis radiographs in an external cohort. Neurosurg Focus 2025;58:E10.
49. Kang DH, Jeong YJ, Kim ST, et al. Automated measurement of pelvic parameters using convolutional neural network in complex spinal deformities: overcoming challenges in coronal deformity cases. Spine J 2025;25:1688-97.
50. Grover P, Siebenwirth J, Caspari C, et al. Can artificial intelligence support or even replace physicians in measuring sagittal balance? Eur Spine J 2022;31:1943-51.
51. Suri A, Tang S, Kargilis D, et al. Conquering the Cobb angle: a deep learning algorithm for automated, hardware-invariant measurement of Cobb angle on radiographs in patients with scoliosis. Radiol Artif Intell 2023;5:e220158.
52. Löchel J, Putzier M, Dreischarf M, et al. Deep learning algorithm for fully automated measurement of sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Eur Spine J 2024;33:4119-24.
53. Vogt S, Scholl C, Grover P, et al. Novel AI-based algorithm for the automated measurement of cervical sagittal balance parameters. A validation study on pre- and postoperative radiographs of 129 patients. Global Spine J 2025;15:1155-65.
54. Derkatch S, Kirby C, Kimelman D, Jozani MJ, Davidson JM, Leslie WD. Identification of vertebral fractures by convolutional neural networks to predict nonvertebral and hip fractures: a registry-based cohort study of dual X-ray absorptiometry. Radiology 2019;293:405-11.
55. Li YC, Chen HH, Horng-Shing Lu H, Hondar Wu HT, Chang MC, Chou PH. Can a deep-learning model for the automated detection of vertebral fractures approach the performance level of human subspecialists? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2021;479:1598-612.
56. Shen L, Gao C, Hu S, et al. Using artificial intelligence to diagnose osteoporotic vertebral fractures on plain radiographs. J Bone Miner Res 2023;38:1278-87.
57. Liu B, Jin Y, Feng S, Yu H, Zhang Y, Li Y. Benign vs malignant vertebral compression fractures with MRI: a comparison between automatic deep learning network and radiologist’s assessment. Eur Radiol 2023;33:5060-8.
58. Jamaludin A, Kadir T, Zisserman A. SpineNet: automated classification and evidence visualization in spinal MRIs. Med Image Anal 2017;41:63-73.
59. Merali Z, Wang JZ, Badhiwala JH, Witiw CD, Wilson JR, Fehlings MG. A deep learning model for detection of cervical spinal cord compression in MRI scans. Sci Rep 2021;11:10473.
60. Hallinan JTPD, Zhu L, Yang K, Makmur A, Algazwi DAR, Thian YL, et al. Deep learning model for automated detection and classification of central canal, lateral recess, and neural foraminal stenosis at lumbar spine MRI. Radiology 2021;300:130-8.
61. Nguyen HT, Pham HH, Nguyen NT, et al. VinDr-SpineXR: a deep learning framework for spinal lesions detection and classification from radiographs. arXiv 2021;arXiv:2106.12930. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.12930 [accessed 16 April 2026].
62. Maki S, Furuya T, Horikoshi T, et al. A deep convolutional neural network with performance comparable to radiologists for differentiating between spinal schwannoma and meningioma. Spine 2020;45:694-700.
63. Haim O, Agur A, Gabay S, et al. Differentiating spinal pathologies by deep learning approach. Spine J 2024;24:297-303.
64. Zhuo Z, Zhang J, Duan Y, et al. Automated classification of intramedullary spinal cord tumors and inflammatory demyelinating lesions using deep learning. Radiol Artif Intell 2022;4:e210292.
65. Huang KT, Silva MA, See AP, et al. A computer vision approach to identifying the manufacturer and model of anterior cervical spinal hardware. J Neurosurg Spine 2019;31:844-50.
66. Yang HS, Kim KR, Kim S, Park JY. Deep learning application in spinal implant identification. Spine 2021;46:E318-24.
67. Dutt R, Mendonca D, Phen HM, et al. Automatic localization and brand detection of cervical spine hardware on radiographs using weakly supervised machine learning. Radiol Artif Intell 2022;4:e210099.
68. Park S, Kim JK, Chang MC, Park JJ, Yang JJ, Lee GW. Assessment of fusion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using convolutional neural network algorithm. Spine 2022;47:1645-50.
69. Schwartz JT, Valliani AA, Arvind V, et al. Identification of anterior cervical spinal instrumentation using a smartphone application powered by machine learning. Spine 2022;47:E407-14.
70. Anand A, Flores AR, McDonald MF, Gadot R, Xu DS, Ropper AE. A computer vision approach to identifying the manufacturer of posterior thoracolumbar instrumentation systems. J Neurosurg Spine 2023;38:417-24.
71. Chun KS, Lee S, Choi H, Park H, Lee S, Jung JY. Patch-wise approach with vision transformer for detecting implant failure in spinal radiography. J Imaging Inform Med 2025.
72. Sun H, Tang W, Deng L, et al. Development and validation of interpretable machine learning models incorporating paraspinal muscle quality to predict cage subsidence risk following posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2025;50:1375-85.
73. Waranusast R, Riyamongkol P, Weerakul S, Chaibhuddanugul N, Laoruengthana A, Mahatthanatrakul A. Fully automated pedicle screw manufacturer identification in plain radiograph with deep learning methods. Eur Spine J 2025;34:3940-9.
74. De Silva T, Vedula SS, Perdomo-Pantoja A, et al. SpineCloud: image analytics for predictive modeling of spine surgery outcomes. J Med Imaging 2020;7:031502.
75. Saravi B, Zink A, Ülkümen S, et al. Clinical and radiomics feature-based outcome analysis in lumbar disc herniation surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24:791.
76. Wu J, Li J, Zhang H, Wu L, Shen X, Lv W. Predicting functional outcome after open lumbar fusion surgery: a retrospective multicenter cohort study. Eur J Radiol 2025;182:111836.
77. Durand WM, Lafage R, Hamilton DK, et al.; International Spine Study Group (ISSG). Artificial intelligence clustering of adult spinal deformity sagittal plane morphology predicts surgical characteristics, alignment, and outcomes. Eur Spine J 2021;30:2157-66.
78. Rudisill SS, Hornung AL, Barajas JN, et al. Artificial intelligence in predicting early-onset adjacent segment degeneration following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J 2022;31:2104-14.
79. Johnson GW, Chanbour H, Ali MA, et al. Artificial intelligence to preoperatively predict proximal junction kyphosis following adult spinal deformity surgery: soft tissue imaging may be necessary for accurate models. Spine 2023;48:1688-95.
80. Brigato P, Vadalà G, De Salvatore S, et al. Harnessing machine learning to predict and prevent proximal junctional kyphosis and failure in adult spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review. Brain Spine 2025;5:104273.
81. Zheng B, Yu P, Ma K, Zhu Z, Liang Y, Liu H. Radiomics-based machine learning model integrating preoperative vertebral computed tomography and clinical features to predict cage subsidence after single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a zero-profile anchored spacer. J Orthop Surg Res 2025;20:851.
82. Bishara A, Patel S, Warman A, et al. Artificial intelligence automated measurements of spinopelvic parameters in adult spinal deformity - a systematic review. Spine Deform 2025;13:1289-304.
83. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Ames CP, et al.; International Spine Study Group. Assessment of symptomatic rod fracture after posterior instrumented fusion for adult spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 2012;71:862-7.
84. Hamilton DK, Buza JA 3rd, Passias P, et al.; International Spine Study Group. The fate of patients with adult spinal deformity incurring rod fracture after thoracolumbar fusion. World Neurosurg 2017;106:905-11.
85. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S, et al.; International Spine Study Group (ISSG). Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine 2013;38:E803-12.
86. Divi SN, Goyal DKC, Bowles DR, et al. How do spinopelvic parameters influence patient-reported outcome measurements after lumbar decompression? Spine J 2020;20:1610-7.
87. Ye J, Gupta S, Farooqi AS, et al. Predictive role of global spinopelvic alignment and upper instrumented vertebra level in symptomatic proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine 2023;39:774-84.
88. Wondra JP 2nd, Kelly MP, Greenberg J, et al. Validation of adult spinal deformity surgical outcome prediction tools in adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. Spine 2023;48:21-8.
89. Schönnagel L, Caffard T, Vu-Han TL, et al. Predicting postoperative outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion: development of a machine learning model. Spine J 2024;24:239-49.
90. Parisien A, Wai EK, ElSayed MSA, Frei H. Subsidence of spinal fusion cages: a systematic review. Int J Spine Surg 2022;16:1103-18.
91. Bui TT, Joseph K, Yahanda AT, Vogl S, Ruiz-Cardozo M, Molina CA. How much variance exists among published definitions of proximal junctional kyphosis? J Clin Med 2025;14:5469.
92. Wilson JP Jr, Fontenot L, Stewart C, Kumbhare D, Guthikonda B, Hoang S. Image-guided navigation in spine surgery: from historical developments to future perspectives. J Clin Med 2024;13:2036.
93. Gebhard FT, Kraus MD, Schneider E, Liener UC, Kinzl L, Arand M. Does computer-assisted spine surgery reduce intraoperative radiation doses? Spine 2006;31:2024-7; discussion 2028.
94. Amiot LP, Lang K, Putzier M, Zippel H, Labelle H. Comparative results between conventional and computer-assisted pedicle screw installation in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. Spine 2000;25:606-14.
95. Verma R, Krishan S, Haendlmayer K, Mohsen A. Functional outcome of computer-assisted spinal pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies including 5,992 pedicle screws. Eur Spine J 2010;19:370-5.
96. Liebmann F, von Atzigen M, Stütz D, et al. Automatic registration with continuous pose updates for marker-less surgical navigation in spine surgery. Med Image Anal 2024;91:103027.
97. Abumoussa A, Gopalakrishnan V, Succop B, et al. Machine learning for automated and real-time two-dimensional to three-dimensional registration of the spine using a single radiograph. Neurosurg Focus 2023;54:E16.
98. Doerr SA, Uneri A, Huang Y, et al. Data-driven detection and registration of spine surgery instrumentation in intraoperative images. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2020;11315:113152P.
99. Burström G, Buerger C, Hoppenbrouwers J, et al. Machine learning for automated 3-dimensional segmentation of the spine and suggested placement of pedicle screws based on intraoperative cone-beam computer tomography. J Neurosurg Spine 2019;31:147-54.
100. Jecklin S, Jancik C, Farshad M, Fürnstahl P, Esfandiari H. X23D-intraoperative 3D lumbar spine shape reconstruction based on sparse multi-view X-ray data. J Imaging 2022;8:271.
101. Luchmann D, Jecklin S, Cavalcanti NA, et al. Spinal navigation with AI-driven 3D-reconstruction of fluoroscopy images: an ex-vivo feasibility study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2024;25:925.
102. Richards PJ, George J, Metelko M, Brown M. Spine computed tomography doses and cancer induction. Spine 2010;35:430-3.
103. van Stralen M, van der Kolk BYM, Zijlstra F, et al. BoneMRI of the cervical spine: deep learning-based radiodensity contrast generation for selective visualization of osseous structures. In: ISMRM 27th Annual Meeting and Exhibition; 2019 May 11-16; Montréal, Canada. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2019. Available from https://ismrm.gitlab.io/2019/1142.html [accessed 16 April 2026].
104. van der Kolk BYMM, Slotman DJJ, Nijholt IM, et al. Bone visualization of the cervical spine with deep learning-based synthetic CT compared to conventional CT: a single-center noninferiority study on image quality. Eur J Radiol 2022;154:110414.
105. Staartjes VE, Seevinck PR, Vandertop WP, van Stralen M, Schröder ML. Magnetic resonance imaging-based synthetic computed tomography of the lumbar spine for surgical planning: a clinical proof-of-concept. Neurosurg Focus 2021;50:E13.
106. Davidar AD, Judy BF, Hersh AM, et al. Robot-assisted screw fixation in a cadaver utilizing magnetic resonance imaging-based synthetic computed tomography: toward radiation-free spine surgery. Illustrative case. J Neurosurg Case Lessons 2023;6:CASE23120.
107. Azad TD, Warman A, Tracz JA, Hughes LP, Judy BF, Witham TF. Augmented reality in spine surgery - past, present, and future. Spine J 2024;24:1-13.
108. Ghaednia H, Fourman MS, Lans A, et al. Augmented and virtual reality in spine surgery, current applications and future potentials. Spine J 2021;21:1617-25.
109. Pierzchajlo N, Stevenson TC, Huynh H, et al. Augmented reality in minimally invasive spinal surgery: a narrative review of available technology. World Neurosurg 2023;176:35-42.
110. Elmi-Terander A, Burström G, Nachabe R, et al. Pedicle screw placement using augmented reality surgical navigation with intraoperative 3D imaging: a first in-human prospective cohort study. Spine 2019;44:517-25.
111. Butler AJ, Colman MW, Lynch J, Phillips FM. Augmented reality in minimally invasive spine surgery: early efficiency and complications of percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine J 2023;23:27-33.
112. Ma Y, Wu J, Dong Y, Tang H, Ma X. Augmented reality navigation system enhances the accuracy of spinal surgery pedicle screw placement: a randomized, multicenter, parallel-controlled clinical trial. Orthop Surg 2025;17:631-43.
113. Auloge P, Cazzato RL, Ramamurthy N, et al. Augmented reality and artificial intelligence-based navigation during percutaneous vertebroplasty: a pilot randomised clinical trial. Eur Spine J 2020;29:1580-9.
114. Carl B, Bopp M, Saß B, Nimsky C. Microscope-based augmented reality in degenerative spine surgery: initial experience. World Neurosurg 2019;128:e541-51.
115. McCloskey K, Turlip R, Ahmad HS, Ghenbot YG, Chauhan D, Yoon JW. Virtual and augmented reality in spine surgery: a systematic review. World Neurosurg 2023;173:96-107.
116. Cui P, Guo Z, Xu J, et al. Tissue recognition in spinal endoscopic surgery using deep learning. In: 2019 IEEE 10th International Conference on Awareness Science and Technology (iCAST); 2019 Oct 23-25; Morioka, Japan. New York: IEEE; 2019. pp 1-5.
117. Cui P, Shu T, Lei J, Chen W. Nerve recognition in percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy using convolutional neural network. Med Phys 2021;48:2279-88.
118. Peng S, Zhao P, Ye Y, Chen J, Chang Y, Zheng X. Spinal nerve segmentation method and dataset construction in endoscopic surgical scenarios. arXiv 2023;arXiv:2307.10955. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10955 [accessed 16 April 2026].
119. ATEC launches EOS insight, an end-to-end spine surgery platform powered by EOS imaging and AI. ATEC (Carlsbad, CA, USA), July 24, 2024. Available from https://investors.alphatecspine.com/press-releases/news-details/2024/ATEC-Launches-EOS-InsightTM-an-End-To-End-Spine-Surgery-Platform-Powered-by-EOS-Imaging-and-AI/default.aspx [accessed 16 April 2026].
120. Carlsmed. Technology Platform. Available from https://carlsmed.com/aprevo-technology-platform/ [accessed 16 April 2026].
121. Fiere V, Fuentès S, Burger E, et al. UNID Patient-Specific Rods show a reduction in rod breakage incidence. New York: Medicrea USA Corp. 2017. Available from https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13695587 [accessed 16 April 2026].
122. Fernandes RJR, Gee A, Kanawati AJ, et al. Biomechanical comparison of subsidence between patient-specific and non-patient-specific lumbar interbody fusion cages. Global Spine J 2024;14:1155-63.
123. Sadrameli SS, Blaskiewicz DJ, Asghar J, et al. Predictability in achieving target intervertebral lordosis using personalized interbody implants. Int J Spine Surg 2024;18:S16-23.
124. Proprio - Technology. Available from https://www.propriovision.com/technology [accessed 16 April 2026].
125. Medivis receives FDA 510(k) clearance for spine navigation and announces commercial launch in the United States. Medivis (New York, NY, USA), April 02, 2025. Available from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medivis-receives-fda-510k-clearance-for-spine-navigation-and-announces-commercial-launch-in-the-united-states-302418834.html [accessed 16 April 2026].
126. Molina CA, Theodore N, Ahmed AK, et al. Augmented reality-assisted pedicle screw insertion: a cadaveric proof-of-concept study. J Neurosurg Spine 2019;31:139-46.
127. Deng Y, Wang C, Hui Y, et al. CTSpine1K: a large-scale dataset for spinal vertebrae segmentation in computed tomography. arXiv 2021;arXiv:2105.14711. Available from http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.14711 [accessed 16 April 2026].
128. Medtronic. UNiDTM adaptive spine intelligence. Available from: https://www.medtronic.com/en-us/healthcare-professionals/products/spinal-orthopedic/complex-spine/fixation-systems/unid-adaptive-spine-intelligence.html. [Last accessed on 16 Apr 2026].
129. Mumuni A, Mumuni F. Data augmentation: a comprehensive survey of modern approaches. Array 2022;16:100258.
130. Miladinović A, Biscontin A, Ajčević M, et al. Evaluating deep learning models for classifying OCT images with limited data and noisy labels. Sci Rep 2024;14:30321.
131. Basha NK, Ananth C, Muthukumaran K, Sudhamsu G, Mittal V, Gared F. Mask region-based convolutional neural network and VGG-16 inspired brain tumor segmentation. Sci Rep 2024;14:17615.
132. Seyyed-Kalantari L, Zhang H, McDermott MBA, Chen IY, Ghassemi M. Underdiagnosis bias of artificial intelligence algorithms applied to chest radiographs in under-served patient populations. Nat Med 2021;27:2176-82.
133. Loftus TJ, Altieri MS, Balch JA, et al. Artificial intelligence-enabled decision support in surgery: state-of-the-art and future directions. Ann Surg 2023;278:51-8.
134. Stanley EAM, Souza R, Wilms M, Forkert ND. Where, why, and how is bias learned in medical image analysis models? EBioMedicine 2025;111:105501.
135. Wessels L, Komm B, Bohner G, Vajkoczy P, Hecht N. Spinal alignment shift between supine and prone CT imaging occurs frequently and regardless of the anatomic region, risk factors, or pathology. Neurosurg Rev 2022;45:855-63.
136. Wang F, Sun X, Li J. Surgical smoke removal via residual Swin transformer network. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2023;18:1417-27.
137. Tejani AS, Cook TS, Hussain M, Sippel Schmidt T, O’Donnell KP. Integrating and adopting AI in the radiology workflow: a primer for standards and Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) profiles. Radiology 2024;311:e232653.
138. Hasani N, Morris MA, Rhamim A, et al. Trustworthy artificial intelligence in medical imaging. PET Clin 2022;17:1-12.
139. Xia P, Chen Z, Tian J, Gong Y, Hou R, Xu Y, et al. CARES: a comprehensive benchmark of trustworthiness in medical vision language models. arXiv 2024;arXiv:2406.06007. Available from http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06007 [accessed 16 April 2026].
140. Petrick N, Chen W, Delfino JG, et al. Regulatory considerations for medical imaging AI/ML devices in the United States: concepts and challenges. J Med Imaging 2023;10:051804.
141. Warraich HJ, Tazbaz T, Califf RM. FDA perspective on the regulation of artificial intelligence in health care and biomedicine. JAMA 2025;333:241-7.
142. Partisan Bill. Georgia House Bill 887. LegiScan. Available from: https://legiscan.com/GA/text/HB887/id/2877485. [Last accessed on 16 Apr 2026].
143. Gonzalez K. Senate Bill S7896. The New York State Senate. Available from: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S7896. [Last accessed on 16 Apr 2026].
144. Schweikert D. Healthy Technology Act of 2025. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/238. [Last accessed on 16 Apr 2026].
145. Parikh RB, Helmchen LA. Paying for artificial intelligence in medicine. NPJ Digit Med 2022;5:63.
147. Dogra S, Silva EZ 3rd, Rajpurkar P. Reimbursement in the age of generalist radiology artificial intelligence. NPJ Digit Med 2024;7:350.
148. Brin D, Tau N. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence tools in radiology: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 2025.
