Tag: single position

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

Radiographic alignment outcomes after the single-position prone transpsoas approach: a multi-institutional retrospective review of 363 cases

Neurosurg Focus 54(1):E3, 2023

The aim of this paper was to evaluate the changes in radiographic spinopelvic parameters in a large cohort of patients undergoing the prone transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine.

METHODS A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was performed for all patients who underwent lateral lumber interbody fusion via the single-position prone transpsoas (PTP) approach. Spinopelvic parameters from preoperative and first upright postoperative radiographs were collected, including lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and pelvic tilt (PT). Functional indices (visual analog scale score), and patient-reported outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index) were also recorded from pre- and postoperative appointments.

RESULTS Of the 363 patients who successfully underwent the procedure, LL after fusion was 50.0° compared with 45.6° preoperatively (p < 0.001). The pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) was 10.5° preoperatively versus 2.9° postoperatively (p < 0.001). PT did not significantly change (0.2° ± 10.7°, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS The PTP approach allows significant gain in lordotic augmentation, which was associated with good functional results at follow-up.

Posted on

Lateral versus prone robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement: a CT-based comparative assessment of accuracy

J Neurosurg Spine 37:112–120, 2022

Single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SP-LLIF) has recently gained significant popularity due to increased operative efficiency, but it remains technically challenging. Robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw (RAPPS) placement can facilitate screw placement in the lateral position. The authors have reported their initial experience with SP-LLIF with RA-PPS placement in the lateral position, and they have compared this accuracy with that of RA-PPS placement in the prone position.

METHODS The authors reviewed prospectively collected data from their first 100 lateral-position RA-PPSs. The authors graded screw accuracy on CT and compared it to the accuracy of all prone-position RA-PPS procedures during the same time period. The authors analyzed the effect of several demographic and perioperative metrics, as a whole and specifically for lateral-position RA-PPS placement.

RESULTS The authors placed 99 lateral-position RA-PPSs by using the ExcelsiusGPS robotic platform in the first 18 consecutive patients who underwent SP-LLIF with postoperative CT imaging; these patients were compared with 346 prone-position RA-PPSs that were placed in the first consecutive 64 patients during the same time period. All screws were placed at L1 to S1. Overall, the lateral group had 14 breaches (14.1%) and the prone group had 25 breaches (7.2%) (p = 0.032). The lateral group had 5 breaches (5.1%) greater than 2 mm (grade C or worse), and the prone group had 4 (1.2%) (p = 0.015). The operative level had an effect on the breach rate, with breach rates (grade C or worse) of 7.1% at L3 and 2.8% at L4. Most breaches were grade B (< 2 mm) and lateral, and no breach had clinical sequelae or required revision. Within the lateral group, multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that BMI and number of levels affected accuracy, but the side that was positioned up or down did not.

CONCLUSIONS RA-PPSs can improve the feasibility of SP-LLIF. Spine surgeons should be cautious and selective with this technique owing to decreased accuracy in the lateral position, particularly in obese patients. Further studies should compare SP-LLIF techniques performed while the patient is in the prone and lateral positions.

Proudly powered by WordPress