Tag: robot-assisted

Posted on

Clinical and radiographic comparison of robot-assisted single-position versus traditional dual-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 42:443–452, 2025

The study compares robot-assisted single-position (RA-SP) and traditional dual-position (DP) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgeries, finding RA-SP-LLIF reduces operative and fluoroscopy times with similar clinical and radiographic outcomes, suggesting enhanced surgical efficiency and safety.

• The study compares robot-assisted single-position (RA-SP) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with traditional dual-position LLIF in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

• 59 patients were analyzed, with 31 undergoing RA-SP-LLIF and 28 undergoing traditional LLIF. Surgical parameters like operative duration, blood loss, and fluoroscopy duration were recorded.

• No significant differences were found in postoperative and follow-up times between groups, but both showed improvements in clinical scores such as VAS, ODI, and SF-36.

• RA-SP-LLIF showed significantly greater improvements in lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis immediately postoperatively, although these differences were not significant at later evaluations.

• The RA-SP-LLIF group had shorter operative and fluoroscopy durations compared to the traditional LLIF group.

• RA-SP-LLIF is considered a promising technique for enhancing surgical efficiency, safety, and precision in lumbar spinal fusion procedures.

• Both procedures improved sagittal alignment parameters, but RA-SP-LLIF reduced surgery and anesthesia times by eliminating the need for repositioning.

Posted on

Robot-assisted intravertebral augmentation corrects local kyphosis more effectively than a conventional fluoroscopy-guided technique

J Neurosurg Spine 30:289–295, 2019

Intravertebral augmentation (IVA) is a reliable minimally invasive technique for treating Magerl type A vertebral body fractures. However, poor correction of kyphotic angulation, the risk of cement leakage, and significant exposure to radiation (for the surgeon, the operating room staff, and the patient) remain significant issues. The authors conducted a study to assess the value of robot-assisted IVA (RA-IVA) for thoracolumbar vertebral body fractures.

METHODS The authors performed a retrospective, single-center study of patients who had undergone RA-IVA or conventional fluoroscopy-guided IVA (F-IVA) for thoracolumbar vertebral body fractures. Installation and operating times, guidance accuracy, residual local kyphosis, degree of restoration of vertebral body height, incidence of cement leakage, rate of morbidity, length of hospital stay, and radiation-related data were recorded.

RESULTS Data obtained in 30 patients who underwent RA-IVA were compared with those obtained in 30 patients who underwent F-IVA during the same period (the surgical indications were identical, but the surgeons were different). The mean ± SD installation time in the RA-IVA group (24 ± 7.5 minutes) was significantly shorter (p = 0.005) than that in the F-IVA group (26 ± 8 minutes). The mean operating time for the RA-IVA group (52 ± 11 minutes) was significantly longer (p = 0.026) than that for the F-IVA group (30 ± 11 minutes). All RA-IVAs and F-IVAs were Ravi’s scale grade A (no pedicle breach). The mean degree of residual local kyphosis (4.7° ± 3.15°) and the percentage of vertebral body height restoration (63.6% ± 21.4%) were significantly better after RA-IVA than after F-IVA (8.4° ± 5.4° and 30% ± 34%, respectively). The incidence of cement leakage was significantly lower in the RA-IVA group (p < 0.05). The mean length of hospital stay after surgery was 3.2 days for both groups. No surgery-related complications occurred in either group. With RA-IVA, the mean radiation exposure was 438 ± 147 mGy × cm for the patient and 30 ± 17 mGy for the surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS RA-IVA provided better vertebral body fracture correction than the conventional F-IVA. However, RAIVA requires more time than F-IVA.

 

Proudly powered by WordPress