Tag: single-position surgery

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

Retrospective single-surgeon study of prone versus lateral robotic pedicle screw placement: a CT-based assessment of accuracy

J Neurosurg Spine 39:490–497, 2023

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion including anterior-to-psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion has conventionally relied on pedicle screw placement (PSP) for construct stabilization. Single-position surgery with lumbar interbody fusion in the lateral decubitus position with concomitant PSP has been associated with increased operative efficiency. What remains unclear is the accuracy of PSP with robotic guidance when compared with the more familiar prone patient positioning. The present study aimed to compare robot-assisted screw placement accuracy between patients with instrumentation placed in the prone and lateral positions.

METHODS The authors identified all consecutive patients treated with interbody fusion and PSP in the prone or lateral position by a single surgeon between January 2019 and October 2022. All pedicle screws placed were analyzed using CT scans to determine appropriate positioning according to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification grading system (grade C or worse was considered as a radiographically significant breach). Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to identify risk factors for the occurrence of a radiographically significant breach.

RESULTS Eighty-nine consecutive patients (690 screws) were included, of whom 46 (477 screws) were treated in the prone position and 43 (213 screws) in the lateral decubitus position. There were fewer breaches in the prone (n = 13, 2.7%) than the lateral decubitus (n = 15, 7.0%) group (p = 0.012). Nine (1.9%) radiographically significant breaches occurred in the prone group compared with 10 (4.7%) in the lateral decubitus group (p = 0.019), for a prone versus lateral decubitus PSP accuracy rate of 98.1% versus 95.3%. There were no significant differences in BMI between prone versus lateral decubitus cohorts (30.1 vs 29.6) or patients with screw breach versus those without (31.2 vs 29.5). In multivariate models, the prone position was the only significant protective factor for screw accuracy; no other significant risk factors for screw breach were identified.

CONCLUSIONS The present data suggest that pedicle screws placed with robotic assistance have higher placement accuracy in the prone position. Further studies will be needed to validate the accuracy of PSP in the lateral position as single-position surgery becomes more commonplace in the treatment of spinal disorders.

Posted on

Complications associated with single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 39:380–386, 2023

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a workhorse surgical approach for lumbar arthrodesis. There is growing interest in techniques for performing single-position surgery in which LLIF and pedicle screw fixation are performed with the patient in the prone position. Most studies of prone LLIF are of poor quality and without long-term followup; therefore, the complication profile related to this novel approach is not well known. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and pooled analysis to understand the safety profile of prone LLIF.

METHODS A systematic review of the literature and a pooled analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies reporting prone LLIF were assessed for inclusion. Studies not reporting complication rates were excluded.

RESULTS Ten studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Overall, 286 patients were treated with prone LLIF across these studies, and a mean (SD) of 1.3 (0.2) levels per patient were treated. The 18 intraoperative complications reported included cage subsidence (3.8% [3/78]), anterior longitudinal ligament rupture (2.3% [5/215]), cage repositioning (2.1% [2/95]), segmental artery injury (2.0% [5/244]), aborted prone interbody placement (0.8% [2/244]), and durotomy (0.6% [1/156]). No major vascular or peritoneal injuries were reported. Sixty-eight postoperative complications occurred, including hip flexor weakness (17.8% [21/118]), thigh and groin sensory symptoms (13.3% [31/233]), revision surgery (3.8% [3/78]), wound infection (1.9% [3/156]), psoas hematoma (1.3% [2/156]), and motor neural injury (1.2% [2/166]).

CONCLUSIONS Single-position LLIF in the prone position appears to be a safe surgical approach with a low complication profile. Longer-term follow-up and prospective studies are needed to better characterize the long-term complication rates related to this approach.

Posted on

Single-position prone lateral transpsoas approach: early experience and outcomes

J Neurosurg Spine 36:358–365, 2022

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) via a transpsoas approach is a workhorse minimally invasive approach for lumbar arthrodesis that is often combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation. There has been increasing interest in performing single-position surgery, allowing access to the anterolateral and posterior spine without requiring patient repositioning. The feasibility of the transpsoas approach in patients in the prone position has been reported. Herein, the authors present a consecutive case series of all patients who underwent single-position prone transpsoas LLIF performed by an individual surgeon since adopting this approach.

METHODS A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive case series of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent single-position prone LLIF for any indication between October 2019 and November 2020. Pertinent operative details (levels, cage use, surgery duration, estimated blood loss, complications) and 3-month clinical outcomes were recorded. Intraoperative and 3-month postoperative radiographs were reviewed to assess for interbody subsidence.

RESULTS Twenty-eight of 29 patients (97%) underwent successful treatment with the prone lateral approach over the study interval; the approach was aborted in 1 patient, whose data were excluded. The mean (SD) age of patients was 67.9 (9.3) years; 75% (21) were women. Thirty-nine levels were treated: 18 patients (64%) had single-level fusion, 9 (32%) had 2-level fusion, and 1 (4%) had 3-level fusion. The most commonly treated levels were L3–4 (n = 15), L2–3 (n = 12), and L4–5 (n = 11). L1–2 was fused in 1 patient. The mean operative time was 286.5 (100.6) minutes, and the mean retractor time was 29.2 (13.5) minutes per level. The mean fluoroscopy duration was 215.5 (99.6) seconds, and the mean intraoperative radiation dose was 170.1 (94.8) mGy. Intraoperative subsidence was noted in 1 patient (4% of patients, 3% of levels). Intraoperative lateral access complications occurred in 11% of patients (1 cage repositioning, 2 inadvertent ruptures of anterior longitudinal ligament). Subsidence occurred in 5 of 22 patients (23%) with radiographic follow-up, affecting 6 of 33 levels (18%). Postoperative functional testing (Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36, visual analog scale–back and leg pain) identified significant improvement.

CONCLUSIONS This single-surgeon consecutive case series demonstrates that this novel technique is well tolerated and has acceptable clinical and radiographic outcomes. Larger patient series with longer follow-up are needed to further elucidate the safety profile and long-term outcomes of single-position prone LLIF.

Proudly powered by WordPress