Intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) imaging is now feasible because of recent technological advances such as 3D cone-beam CT (CBCT) and flat-panel X-ray detectors (FPDs). These technologies reduce the radiation dose to the patient and surgical team. The aim of this study is to review the advantages of 3D intraoperative imaging in orthopedic and trauma surgery by answering the following 5 questions: What are its technical principles? CBCT with a FPD produces non-distorted digital images and frees up the surgical field. The high quality of these 3D intraoperative images allows them to be integrated into surgical navigation systems. Human–robot comanipulation will likely follow soon after. Conventional multislice CT technology has also improved to the point where it can be used in the operating room. What can we expect from 3D intraoperative imaging and which applications have been validated clinically? We reviewed the literature on this topic for the past 10 years. The expected benefits were determined during the implantation of pedicular screws: more accurate implantation, fewer surgical revisions and time savings. There are few studies in trauma or arthroplasty cases, as robotic comanipulation is a more recent development. What is the tolerance for irradiation to the patient and surgical team? The health drawbacks are the harmful radiation-induced effects. The deterministic effects that we will develop are correlated to the absorbed dose in Gray units (Gy). The stochastic and carcinogenic effects are related to the effective dose in milliSievert (mSv) of linear evolution without threshold. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) states that irradiation for medical purposes with risk of detriment is acceptable if it is justified by an optimization attempt. The radioprotection limits must be known but do not constitute opposable restrictions. The superiority of intraoperative 3D imaging over fluoroscopy has been demonstrated for spine surgery and sacroiliac screw fixation. How does the environment need to be adapted? The volume, access, wall protection and floor strength of the operating room must take into account the features of each machine. The instrumentation implants and need for specialized staff result in additional costs. Not every system can track movements during the CBCT acquisition thus transient suspension of assisted ventilation may be required. Is it financially viable? This needs to be calculated based on the expected clinical benefits, which mainly correspond to the elimination of expenses tied to surgical revisions. Our society's search for safety has driven the investments in this technology.

V, Expert opinion.