Tag: spine instrumentation

Posted on

Unskilled unawareness and the learning curve in robotic spine surgery

SpineAssist™ robot system

Acta Neurochir (2015) 157:1819–1823

Robotic assistance for the placement of pedicle screws has been established as a safe technique. Nonetheless rare instances of screw misplacement have been reported.The aim of the present retrospective study is to assess whether experience and time affect the accuracy of screws placed with the help of the SpineAssist™ robot system.

Methods Postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans of 258 patients requiring thoracolumbar pedicle screw instrumentation from 2008 to 2013 were reviewed. Overall, 13 surgeons performed the surgeries. A pedicle breach of >3 mm was graded as a misplacement. Surgeons were dichotomised into an early and experienced period in increments of five surgeries.

Results In 258 surgeries, 1,265 pedicle screws were placed with the aid of the robot system. Overall, 1,217 screws (96.2 %) were graded as acceptable. When displayed by surgeon, the development of percent misplacement rates peaked between 5 and 25 surgeries in 12 of 13 surgeons. The overall misplacement rate in the first five surgeries was 2.4%(6/245). The misplacement rate rose to 6.3 % between 11 and 15 surgeries (10/158; p=0.20), and reached a significant peak between 16 and 20 surgeries with a rate of 7.1 % (8/112; p= 0.03). Afterwards, misplacement rates declined.

Conclusions A major peak in screw inaccuracies occurred between cases 10 and 20, and a second, smaller one at about 40 surgeries. One potential explanation could be a transition from decreased supervision (unskilled but aware) to increased confidence of a surgeon (unskilled but unaware) who adopts this new technique prior to mastering it (skilled). We therefore advocate ensuring competent supervision for new surgeons at least during the first 25 procedures of robotic spine surgery to optimise the accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screws.

Posted on

Instrumentation of the Posterior Thoracolumbar Spine: From Wires to Pedicle Screws

Instrumentation of the Posterior Thoracolumbar Spine- From Wires to Pedicle Screws

Operative Neurosurgery 10:497–505, 2014

Over the past 120 years, spinal stabilization has advanced immensely. An updated review highlighting these advancements has not been performed in the past 20 years.

The objective of this report is to provide a historical assessment of the decades outlining various key innovators, their techniques, and instrumentation.

It is important to provide new generations of surgeons and students with historical evidence of the value of developing new techniques and instrumentation to improve patient care and outcomes.

Posted on

Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine


Robot-assisted spine surgery

J Neurosurg Spine 20:636–643, 2014

Recent years have been marked by efforts to improve the quality and safety of pedicle screw placement in spinal instrumentation. The aim of the present study is to compare the accuracy of the SpineAssist robot system with conventional fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement.

Methods. Ninety-five patients suffering from degenerative disease and requiring elective lumbar instrumentation were included in the study. The robot cohort (Group I; 55 patients, 244 screws) consisted of an initial open robot-assisted subgroup (Subgroup IA; 17 patients, 83 screws) and a percutaneous cohort (Subgroup IB, 38 patients, 161 screws). In these groups, pedicle screws were placed under robotic guidance and lateral fluoroscopic control. In the fluoroscopy-guided cohort (Group II; 40 patients, 163 screws) screws were inserted using anatomical landmarks and lateral fluoroscopic guidance. The primary outcome measure was accuracy of screw placement on the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (Grade A to E and R [revised]). Secondary parameters were duration of surgery, blood loss, cumulative morphine, and length of stay.

Results. In the robot group (Group I), a perfect trajectory (A) was observed in 204 screws (83.6%). The remaining screws were graded B (n = 19 [7.8%]), C (n = 9 [3.7%]), D (n = 4 [1.6%]), E (n = 2 [0.8%]), and R ( n = 6 [2.5%]). In the fluoroscopy-guided group (Group II), a completely intrapedicular course graded A was found in 79.8% (n = 130). The remaining screws were graded B (n = 12 [7.4%]), C (n = 10 [6.1%]), D (n = 6 [3.7%]), and E (n = 5 [3.1%]). The comparison of “clinically acceptable” (that is, A and B screws) was neither different between groups (I vs II [p = 0.19]) nor subgroups (Subgroup IA vs IB [p = 0.81]; Subgroup IA vs Group II [p = 0.53]; Subgroup IB vs Group II [p = 0.20]). Blood loss was lower in the robot-assisted group than in the fluoroscopy-guided group, while duration of surgery, length of stay, and cumulative morphine dose were not statistically different.

Conclusions. Robot-guided pedicle screw placement is a safe and useful tool for assisting spine surgeons in degenerative spine cases. Nonetheless, technical difficulties remain and fluoroscopy backup is advocated.

Proudly powered by WordPress