PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2022; 17(04): 547-556
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1757628
Original Article

A Comparison of Spinal Robotic Systems and Pedicle Screw Accuracy Rates: Review of Literature and Meta-Analysis

Vera Ong
1   John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
,
Ashley Robb Swan
2   Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
,
John P. Sheppard
3   Department of Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
,
Edwin Ng
4   Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Brian Faung
2   Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
,
Luis D. Diaz-Aguilar
2   Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
,
Martin H. Pham
2   Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The motivation to improve accuracy and reduce complication rates in spinal surgery has driven great advancements in robotic surgical systems, with the primary difference between the newer generation and older generation models being the presence of an optical camera and multijointed arm. This study compares accuracy and complication rates of pedicle screw placement in older versus newer generation robotic systems reported in the literature.

Methods We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis describing outcomes of pedicle screw placement with robotic spine surgery. We assessed the robustness of these findings by quantifying levels of cross-study heterogeneity and publication bias. Finally, we performed meta-regression to test for associations between pedicle screw accuracy and older versus newer generation robotic spine system usage.

Results Average pedicle screw placement accuracy rates for old and new generation robotic platforms were 97 and 99%, respectively. Use of new generation robots was significantly associated with improved pedicle screw placement accuracy (p = 0.03).

Conclusion Accuracy of pedicle screw placement was high across all generations of robotic surgical systems. However, newer generation robots were shown to be significantly associated with accurate pedicle screw placement, showing the benefits of upgrading robotic systems with a real-time optical camera and multijointed arm.

Keywords

surgical robotics - spine surgery - pedicle screw placement accuracy


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
18. Oktober 2022

© 2022. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Devito DP, Kaplan L, Dietl R. et al. Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with SpineAssist surgical robot: retrospective study. Spine 2010; 35 (24) 2109-2115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 D'Souza M, Gendreau J, Feng A, Kim LH, Ho AL, Veeravagu A. Robotic-assisted spine surgery: history, efficacy, cost, and future trends. Robot Surg 2019; 6: 9-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lonjon N, Chan-Seng E, Costalat V, Bonnafoux B, Vassal M, Boetto J. Robot-assisted spine surgery: feasibility study through a prospective case-matched analysis. Eur Spine J 2016; 25 (03) 947-955
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Han X, Tian W, Liu Y. et al. Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2019; 30 (05) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Du J, Gao L, Huang D. et al. Radiological and clinical differences between Tinavi Orthopedic Robot and O-Arm Navigation System in thoracolumbar screw implantation for reconstruction of spinal stability. Med Sci Monit 2020; 26: e924770 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.924770.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zhang Q, Xu YF, Tian W. et al. Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations between robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement and conventional open fluoroscopic-guided pedicle screw placement. Orthop Surg 2019; 11 (05) 850-856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chen X, Song Q, Wang K. et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective matched-control analysis for clinical and quality-of-life outcomes. J Comp Eff Res 2021; 10 (10) 845-856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Definition of the different levels of evidence (LoE). Global Spine J 2015; 5 (06) 539-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 1990; 15 (01) 11-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Joseph JR, Smith BW, Liu X, Park P. Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 2017; 42 (05) E2 DOI: 10.3171/2017.2.FOCUS16544.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Solomiichuk V, Fleischhammer J, Molliqaj G. et al. Robotic versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for metastatic spinal disease: a matched-cohort comparison. Neurosurg Focus 2017; 42 (05) E13 DOI: 10.3171/2017.3.FOCUS1710.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fan Y, Peng Du J, Liu JJ, Zhang JN, Liu SC, Hao DJ. Radiological and clinical differences among three assisted technologies in pedicle screw fixation of adult degenerative scoliosis. Sci Rep 2018; 8 (01) 890 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-19054-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Schwarzer G. Meta: An R Package for Meta-Analysis. R News: The Newsletter of the R Project 2007; 7: 40-45
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 2010; 36: 1-48
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Cochran WG. The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika 1950; 37 (3-4): 256-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315 (7109): 629-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Borenstein M. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2009
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pechlivanis I, Kiriyanthan G, Engelhardt M. et al. Percutaneous placement of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine using a bone mounted miniature robotic system: first experiences and accuracy of screw placement. Spine 2009; 34 (04) 392-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ringel F, Stüer C, Reinke A. et al. Accuracy of robot-assisted placement of lumbar and sacral pedicle screws: a prospective randomized comparison to conventional freehand screw implantation. Spine 2012; 37 (08) E496-E501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Roser F, Tatagiba M, Maier G. Spinal robotics: current applications and future perspectives. Neurosurgery 2013; 72 (Suppl 1): 12-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Onen MR, Simsek M, Naderi S. Robotic spine surgery: a preliminary report. Turk Neurosurg 2014; 24 (04) 512-518
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schatlo B, Molliqaj G, Cuvinciuc V, Kotowski M, Schaller K, Tessitore E. Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: a matched cohort comparison. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 20 (06) 636-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 van Dijk JD, van den Ende RPJ, Stramigioli S, Köchling M, Höss N. Clinical pedicle screw accuracy and deviation from planning in robot-guided spine surgery: robot-guided pedicle screw accuracy. Spine 2015; 40 (17) E986-E991
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fan Y, Du J, Zhang J. et al. Comparison of accuracy of pedicle screw insertion among 4 guided technologies in spine surgery. Med Sci Monit 2017; 23: 5960-5968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Molliqaj G, Schatlo B, Alaid A. et al. Accuracy of robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2017; 42 (05) E14 DOI: 10.3171/2017.3.FOCUS179.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kim H-J, Lee SH, Chang B-S. et al. Monitoring the quality of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine by using a cumulative summation test. Spine 2015; 40 (02) 87-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tsai T-H, Wu D-S, Su Y-F, Wu C-H, Lin C-L. A retrospective study to validate an intraoperative robotic classification system for assessing the accuracy of Kirschner wire (K-wire) placements with postoperative computed tomography classification system for assessing the accuracy of pedicle screw placements. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95 (38) e4834 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004834.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hyun S-J, Kim K-J, Jahng T-A, Kim H-J. Minimally invasive robotic versus open fluoroscopic-guided spinal instrumented fusions: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 2017; 42 (06) 353-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kam JKT, Gan C, Dimou S. et al. Learning curve for robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgery. Asian Spine J 2019; 13 (06) 920-927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Du J, Gao L, Huang D. et al. Radiological and clinical differences between robotic-assisted pedicle screw fixation with and without real-time optical tracking. Eur Spine J 2021; 30 (01) 142-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Zhang J-N, Fan Y, He X, Liu T-J, Hao D-J. Comparison of robot-assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement for lumbar revision surgery. Int Orthop 2021; 45 (06) 1531-1538 (SICOT)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Khan A, Meyers JE, Siasios I, Pollina J. Next-generation robotic spine surgery: first report on feasibility, safety, and learning curve. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2019; 17 (01) 61-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mao G, Gigliotti MJ, Myers D, Yu A, Whiting D. Single-surgeon direct comparison of O-arm neuronavigation versus Mazor X robotic-guided posterior spinal instrumentation. World Neurosurg 2020; 137: e278-e285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Jain D, Manning J, Lord E. et al. Initial single-institution experience with a novel robotic-navigation system for thoracolumbar pedicle screw and pelvic screw placement with 643 screws. Int J Spine Surg 2019; 13 (05) 459-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Wallace DJ, Vardiman AB, Booher GA. et al. Navigated robotic assistance improves pedicle screw accuracy in minimally invasive surgery of the lumbosacral spine: 600 pedicle screws in a single institution. Int J Med Robot 2020; 16 (01) e2054 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2054.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Benech CA, Perez R, Benech F, Greeley SL, Crawford N, Ledonio C. Navigated robotic assistance results in improved screw accuracy and positive clinical outcomes: an evaluation of the first 54 cases. J Robot Surg 2020; 14 (03) 431-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Fayed I, Tai A, Triano M. et al. Robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement: evaluation of accuracy of the first 100 screws and comparison with cohort of fluoroscopy-guided screws. World Neurosurg 2020; 143: e492-e502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Jiang B, Pennington Z, Azad T. et al. Robot-assisted versus freehand instrumentation in short-segment lumbar fusion: experience with real-time image-guided spinal robot. World Neurosurg 2020; 136: e635-e645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Tian W. Pedicle screw insertion in spine: a randomized controlled study for robot-assisted spinal surgery. EPIC Health Sciences 2017; 1: 23-27
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Le X, Tian W, Shi Z. et al. Robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw instrumentation in lumbar spinal surgery: a matched-cohort comparison. World Neurosurg 2018; 120: e745-e751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Feng S, Tian W, Sun Y, Liu Y, Wei Y. Effect of robot-assisted surgery on lumbar pedicle screw internal fixation in patients with osteoporosis. World Neurosurg 2019; 125: e1057-e1062
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Wu JY, Yuan Q, Liu YJ, Sun YQ, Zhang Y, Tian W. Robot-assisted percutaneous transfacet screw fixation supplementing oblique lateral interbody fusion procedure: accuracy and safety evaluation of this novel minimally invasive technique. Orthop Surg 2019; 11 (01) 25-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Fan M, Liu Y, He D. et al. Improved accuracy of cervical spinal surgery with robot-assisted screw insertion: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine 2020; 45 (05) 285-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Spetzler RF, McDougall CG, Zabramski JM. et al. Ten-year analysis of saccular aneurysms in the barrow ruptured aneurysm trial. J Neurosurg 2019; 132 (03) 771-776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kalidindi KKV, Sharma JK, Jagadeesh NH, Sath S, Chhabra HS. Robotic spine surgery: a review of the present status. J Med Eng Technol 2020; 44 (07) 431-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Menger RP, Savardekar AR, Farokhi F, Sin A. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the integration of robotic spine technology in spine surgery. Neurospine 2018; 15 (03) 216-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar