Tag: screw accuracy

Posted on

Robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement accuracy compared with alternative guidance in lateral single-position surgery

J Neurosurg Spine 39:443–451, 2023

While single-position surgery (SPS) eliminates the need for patient repositioning, the placement of screws in the unconventional lateral position poses unique challenges related to asymmetry relative to the surgical table. Use of robotic guidance or intraoperative navigation can help to overcome this. The aim of this study was to compare the relative accuracies offered by these various navigation modalities for pedicle screws placed in lateral SPS.

METHODS According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies reporting pedicle screw placement accuracy using fluoroscopic, CT-navigated, O-arm, or robotic guidance in lateral SPS, and a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Included studies all compared evaluated screw placement accuracy in lateral SPS using a single navigation method. Quality assessment was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system; risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. The primary outcome, rate of pedicle screw breach, was analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS Eleven studies were included comprising 548 patients who underwent the placement of instrumentation with 2488 screws. For the fluoroscopic, CT-navigated, O-arm, and robotic guidance cohorts, there were 3, 2, 3, and 3 studies, respectively. Breach rates by modality were as follows: fluoroscopic guidance (6.6%), CT navigation (4.7%), O-arm (3.9%), and robotic guidance (3.9%). Random-effects meta-analysis showed a significant difference between studies, with an overall breach rate of 4.9% (95% CI 3.1%–7.5%; p < 0.001); however, testing for subgroup differences failed to show a significant difference between guidance modalities (Q M = 0.69, df = 3; p = 0.88). Heterogeneity between studies was significant (I 2 = 79.0%, τ 2 = 0.41, χ 2 = 47.65, df = 10; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS Robotic guidance of screws is noninferior to alternative guidance modalities in lateral SPS; however, additional prospective studies directly comparing different guidance types are merited.

Posted on

Robot-assisted and augmented reality–assisted spinal instrumentation

J Neurosurg Spine 37:299–314, 2022

The use of technology-enhanced methods in spine surgery has increased immensely over the past decade. Here, the authors present the largest systematic review and meta-analysis to date that specifically addresses patient-centered outcomes, including the risk of inaccurate screw placement and perioperative outcomes in spinal surgeries using robotic instrumentation and/or augmented reality surgical navigation (ARSN).

METHODS A systematic review of the literature in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases spanning the last decade (January 2011–November 2021) was performed to present all clinical studies comparing robot-assisted instrumentation and ARSN with conventional instrumentation techniques in lumbar spine surgery. The authors compared these two technologies as they relate to screw accuracy, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative time, length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, radiation dose and time, and the rate of reoperation.

RESULTS A total of 64 studies were analyzed that included 11,113 patients receiving 20,547 screws. Robot-assisted instrumentation was associated with less risk of inaccurate screw placement (p < 0.0001) regardless of control arm approach (freehand, fluoroscopy guided, or navigation guided), fewer reoperations (p < 0.0001), fewer perioperative complications (p < 0.0001), lower EBL (p = 0.0005), decreased LOS (p < 0.0001), and increased intraoperative time (p = 0.0003). ARSN was associated with decreased radiation exposure compared with robotic instrumentation (p = 0.0091) and fluoroscopy-guided (p < 0.0001) techniques.

CONCLUSIONS Altogether, the pooled data suggest that technology-enhanced thoracolumbar instrumentation is advantageous for both patients and surgeons. As the technology progresses and indications expand, it remains essential to continue investigations of both robotic instrumentation and ARSN to validate meaningful benefit over conventional instrumentation techniques in spine surgery.

Systematic review registration no.: CRD42021283631 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/)

Proudly powered by WordPress