RSS-Feed abonnieren

DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1806858
Spinal Robotics in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Key Concepts and Technical Considerations
Funding None.

Abstract
Robotic assistance in spine surgery has long been pursued to innovate minimally invasive procedures and enhance patient safety, outcomes, operation time, and affordability. Over the past few decades, advancements in navigation and robotics have fundamentally transformed the role of technology in spine surgery, with their applications continuously expanding. In particular, this technology has made significant strides in the setting of adult spinal deformity (ASD), driving innovations for this technically challenging pathology. In this review, the authors explore key aspects of robotic assistance in ASD surgery, including software planning and construct design, pedicle screw placement, sacropelvic fixation, operative outcomes, and the learning curve associated with adopting this technology. Research articles for this qualitative review were indexed using PubMed and Google Scholar. The review also addresses the opportunities and challenges ahead in the field. Although this technology is in its relative infancy, the growing body of research is beginning to fully characterize its utility in surgery and its potential to redefine the standard of care.
Keywords
adult spinal deformity - minimally invasive - pedicle screw - robotic assistance - robotic guidance - S2 alar-iliac screwAuthors' Contributions
K.K. contributed to conceptualization, writing of the original draft, review, and editing, and visualization. C.P.M. contributed to conceptualization and writing of the original draft. N.S.H. contributed to writing—review and editing. M.H.P. contributed to writing—review and editing, supervision, and project administration.
Publikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. März 2025
© 2025. 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 Safaee MM, Ames CP, Smith JS. Epidemiology and socioeconomic trends in adult spinal deformity care. Neurosurgery 2020; 87 (01) 25-32
- 2 Zelenty WD, Kelly MJ, Hughes AP. Outcomes and cost-effectiveness of adult spinal deformity surgery. Semin Spine Surg 2022; 34 (04) 100994
- 3 Nolte LP, Zamorano L, Visarius H. et al. Clinical evaluation of a system for precision enhancement in spine surgery. Clin Biomech (Bristol) 1995; 10 (06) 293-303
- 4 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
- 5 Cronin PK, Poelstra K, Protopsaltis TS. Role of robotics in adult spinal deformity. Int J Spine Surg 2021; 15 (s2): S56-S64
- 6 Terran J, Schwab F, Shaffrey CI. et al; International Spine Study Group. The SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: assessment and clinical correlations based on a prospective operative and nonoperative cohort. Neurosurgery 2013; 73 (04) 559-568
- 7 Langella F, Villafañe JH, Damilano M. et al. Predictive accuracy of Surgimap surgical planning for sagittal imbalance: a cohort study. Spine 2017; 42 (22) E1297-E1304
- 8 Barton C, Noshchenko A, Patel V, Kleck C, Burger E. Early experience and initial outcomes with patient-specific spine rods for adult spinal deformity. Orthopedics 2016; 39 (02) 79-86
- 9 Solla F, Barrey CY, Burger E, Kleck CJ, Fière V. Patient-specific rods for surgical correction of sagittal imbalance in adults: technical aspects and preliminary results. Clin Spine Surg 2019; 32 (02) 80-86
- 10 Kleck CJ, Calabrese D, Reeves BJ. et al. Long-term treatment effect and predictability of spinopelvic alignment after surgical correction of adult spine deformity with patient-specific spine rods. Spine 2020; 45 (07) E387-E396
- 11 Shen FH, Qureshi R, Tyger R. et al. Use of the “dual construct” for the management of complex spinal reconstructions. Spine J 2018; 18 (03) 482-490
- 12 Bourghli A, Boissière L, Kieser D. et al; European Spine Study Group. Multiple-rod constructs do not reduce pseudarthrosis and rod fracture after pedicle subtraction osteotomy for adult spinal deformity correction but improve quality of life. Neurospine 2021; 18 (04) 816-823
- 13 Pham MH, Shah VJ, Diaz-Aguilar LD, Osorio JA, Lehman RA. Minimally invasive multiple-rod constructs with robotics planning in adult spinal deformity surgery: a case series. Eur Spine J 2022; 31 (01) 95-103
- 14 Pham MH, Hernandez NS, Stone LE. Preoperative robotics planning facilitates complex construct design in robot-assisted minimally invasive adult spinal deformity surgery: a preliminary experience. J Clin Med 2024; 13 (07) 1829
- 15 Pennington Z, Brown NJ, Quadri S, Pishva S, Kuo CC, Pham MH. Robotics planning in minimally invasive surgery for adult degenerative scoliosis: illustrative case. J Neurosurg Case Lessons 2023; 5 (10) CASE22520
- 16 Pannu CD, Farooque K, Sharma V, Singal D. Minimally invasive spine surgeries for treatment of thoracolumbar fractures of spine: a systematic review. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2019; 10 (Suppl. 01) S147-S155
- 17 Tian F, Tu LY, Gu WF. et al. Percutaneous versus open pedicle screw instrumentation in treatment of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97 (41) e12535
- 18 Phan K, Rao PJ, Mobbs RJ. Percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation for treatment of thoracolumbar fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015; 135: 85-92
- 19 Katsevman GA, Spencer RD, Daffner SD. et al. Robotic-navigated percutaneous pedicle screw placement has less facet joint violation than fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous screws. World Neurosurg 2021; 151: e731-e737
- 20 Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 1990; 15 (01) 11-14
- 21 Puvanesarajah V, Liauw JA, Lo SF, Lina IA, Witham TF. Techniques and accuracy of thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement. World J Orthop 2014; 5 (02) 112-123
- 22 Tian NF, Xu HZ. Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (04) 895-903
- 23 Oh HS, Kim JS, Lee SH, Liu WC, Hong SW. Comparison between the accuracy of percutaneous and open pedicle screw fixations in lumbosacral fusion. Spine J 2013; 13 (12) 1751-1757
- 24 Sedney CL, Daffner SD, Obafemi-Afolabi A. et al. A comparison of open and percutaneous techniques in the operative fixation of spinal fractures associated with ankylosing spinal disorders. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 23
- 25 Zhang Q, Fan MX, Han XG. et al. Risk factors of unsatisfactory robot-assisted pedicle screw placement: a case-control study. Neurospine 2021; 18 (04) 839-844
- 26 Pojskić M, Bopp M, Nimsky C, Carl B, Saβ B. Initial intraoperative experience with robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement with Cirq® robotic alignment: an evaluation of the first 70 screws. J Clin Med 2021; 10 (24) 5725
- 27 Zhang JN, Fan Y, He X, Liu TJ, Hao DJ. Comparison of robot-assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement for lumbar revision surgery. Int Orthop 2021; 45 (06) 1531-1538
- 28 Huntsman KT, Ahrendtsen LA, Riggleman JR, Ledonio CG. Robotic-assisted navigated minimally invasive pedicle screw placement in the first 100 cases at a single institution. J Robot Surg 2020; 14 (01) 199-203
- 29 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
- 30 Khalifeh K, Brown NJ, Pennington Z, Pham MH. Spinal robotics in adult spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review. Neurospine 2024; 21 (01) 20-29
- 31 Hiyama A, Katoh H, Sakai D, Tanaka M, Sato M, Watanabe M. Facet joint violation after single-position versus dual-position lateral interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of two techniques. J Clin Neurosci 2020; 78: 47-52
- 32 Kim HJ, Chun HJ, Kang KT. et al. The biomechanical effect of pedicle screws' insertion angle and position on the superior adjacent segment in 1 segment lumbar fusion. Spine 2012; 37 (19) 1637-1644
- 33 Babu R, Park JG, Mehta AI. et al. Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Neurosurgery 2012; 71 (05) 962-970
- 34 Rosner MK, Ondra SL. Sacropelvic fixation in adult deformity. Semin Spine Surg 2004; 16 (02) 107-113
- 35 Chang TL, Sponseller PD, Kebaish KM, Fishman EK. Low profile pelvic fixation: anatomic parameters for sacral alar-iliac fixation versus traditional iliac fixation. Spine 2009; 34 (05) 436-440
- 36 Shillingford JN, Laratta JL, Tan LA. et al. The free-hand technique for S2-alar-iliac screw placement: a safe and effective method for sacropelvic fixation in adult spinal deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (04) 334-342
- 37 Laratta JL, Shillingford JN, Lombardi JM. et al. Accuracy of S2 alar-iliac screw placement under robotic guidance. Spine Deform 2018; 6 (02) 130-136
- 38 Lee NJ, Khan A, Lombardi JM. et al. The accuracy of robot-assisted S2 alar-iliac screw placement at two different healthcare centers. J Spine Surg 2021; 7 (03) 326-334
- 39 Mayer HM. A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 1997; 22 (06) 691-699 , discussion 700
- 40 Pham MH, Hirshman BR. Single-position L2-S1 oblique lumbar interbody fusion with robot-assisted L2-ilium posterior spinal fixation: 2-dimensional operative video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2023; 25 (02) e85
- 41 Diaz-Aguilar LD, Shah V, Himstead A, Brown NJ, Abraham ME, Pham MH. Simultaneous robotic single-position surgery (SR-SPS) with oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a case series. World Neurosurg 2021; 151: e1036-e1043
- 42 Hernandez NS, Diaz-Aguilar LD, Pham MH. Single position L5-S1 lateral ALIF with simultaneous robotic posterior fixation is safe and improves regional alignment and lordosis distribution index. Eur Spine J 2024; 33 (09) 3583-3592
- 43 Yeo QY, Pham MH, Oh JYL. Single-position robotic-assisted prone lateral fusion: technical description and feasibility. Asian Spine J 2024; 18 (01) 118-123
- 44 Stone LE, Broughton AG, Lewis CS, Pham MH. Single position robot-assisted pedicle screw placement with S2-alar-iliac fixation in lateral decubitus: cadaveric feasibility study and early clinical experience. Eur Spine J 2024; 33 (09) 3576-3582
- 45 Gruskay JA, Fu M, Basques BA. et al. Factors affecting length of stay and complications after elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a study of 2164 patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Database (ACS NSQIP). Clin Spine Surg 2016; 29 (01) E34-E42
- 46 Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, Kim HJ. Minimally invasive robotic versus open fluoroscopic-guided spinal instrumented fusions: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 2017; 42 (06) 353-358
- 47 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
- 48 Kantelhardt SR, Martinez R, Baerwinkel S, Burger R, Giese A, Rohde V. Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (06) 860-868
- 49 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
- 50 Li Y, Chen L, Liu Y. et al. Accuracy and safety of robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw placement: a comparison of robot-assisted technique with fluoroscopy-assisted approach. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022; 23 (01) 328
- 51 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
- 52 Zhong J, Leon C, Ashayeri K. et al. Comparison of freehand, fluoro-guided, CT navigation, and robot-guided TLIF and ALIF. Spine J 2020; 20 (9, supplement): S99
- 53 Jones DP, Robertson PA, Lunt B, Jackson SA. Radiation exposure during fluoroscopically assisted pedicle screw insertion in the lumbar spine. Spine 2000; 25 (12) 1538-1541
- 54 Smith HE, Welsch MD, Sasso RC, Vaccaro AR. Comparison of radiation exposure in lumbar pedicle screw placement with fluoroscopy vs computer-assisted image guidance with intraoperative three-dimensional imaging. J Spinal Cord Med 2008; 31 (05) 532-537
- 55 Villard J, Ryang YM, Demetriades AK. et al. Radiation exposure to the surgeon and the patient during posterior lumbar spinal instrumentation: a prospective randomized comparison of navigated versus non-navigated freehand techniques. Spine 2014; 39 (13) 1004-1009
- 56 McKenzie DM, Westrup AM, O'Neal CM. et al. Robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review. J Clin Neurosci 2021; 89: 1-7
- 57 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
- 58 Hu X, Lieberman IH. What is the learning curve for robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement in spine surgery?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (06) 1839-1844
- 59 Pennington Z, Judy BF, Zakaria HM. et al. Learning curves in robot-assisted spine surgery: a systematic review and proposal of application to residency curricula. Neurosurg Focus 2022; 52 (01) E3
- 60 Schatlo B, Martinez R, Alaid A. et al. Unskilled unawareness and the learning curve in robotic spine surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015; 157 (10) 1819-1823 , discussion 1823
- 61 Urakov TM, Chang KHK, Burks SS, Wang MY. Initial academic experience and learning curve with robotic spine instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus 2017; 42 (05) E4
- 62 Alluri RK, Avrumova F, Sivaganesan A, Vaishnav AS, Lebl DR, Qureshi SA. Overview of robotic technology in spine surgery. HSS J 2021; 17 (03) 308-316
- 63 Becker's Spine Review. da Vinci Surgical System vs. Renaissance Robotic Surgical System – is Mazor Robotics the next Intuitive Surgical? February 8, 2018. Accessed June 2, 2024 at: https://www.beckersspine.com/spinal-tech/39853-da-vinci-surgical-system-vs-renaissance-robotic-surgical-system-is-mazor-robotics-the-next-intuitive-surgical.html