Literature DB >> 21079498

Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with SpineAssist surgical robot: retrospective study.

Dennis P Devito1, Leon Kaplan, Rupert Dietl, Michael Pfeiffer, Dale Horne, Boris Silberstein, Mitchell Hardenbrook, George Kiriyanthan, Yair Barzilay, Alexander Bruskin, Dieter Sackerer, Vitali Alexandrovsky, Carsten Stüer, Ralf Burger, Johannes Maeurer, Gordon D Donald, Donald G Gordon, Robert Schoenmayr, Alon Friedlander, Nachshon Knoller, Kirsten Schmieder, Ioannis Pechlivanis, In-Se Kim, Bernhard Meyer, Moshe Shoham.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter study of robotically-guided spinal implant insertions. Clinical acceptance of the implants was assessed by intraoperative radiograph, and when available, postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were used to determine placement accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: To verify the clinical acceptance and accuracy of robotically-guided spinal implants and compare to those of unguided free-hand procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SpineAssist surgical robot has been used to guide implants and guide-wires to predefined locations in the spine. SpineAssist which, to the best of the authors' knowledge, is currently the sole robot providing surgical assistance in positioning tools in the spine, guided over 840 cases in 14 hospitals, between June 2005 and June 2009.
METHODS: Clinical acceptance of 3271 pedicle screws and guide-wires inserted in 635 reported cases was assessed by intraoperative fluoroscopy, where placement accuracy of 646 pedicle screws inserted in 139 patients was measured using postoperative CT scans.
RESULTS: Screw placements were found to be clinically acceptable in 98% of the cases when intraoperatively assessed by fluoroscopic images. Measurements derived from postoperative CT scans demonstrated that 98.3% of the screws fell within the safe zone, where 89.3% were completely within the pedicle and 9% breached the pedicle by up to 2 mm. The remaining 1.4% of the screws breached between 2 and 4 mm, while only 2 screws (0.3%) deviated by more than 4 mm from the pedicle wall. Neurologic deficits were observed in 4 cases yet, following revisions, no permanent nerve damage was encountered, in contrast to the 0.6% to 5% of neurologic damage reported in the literature.
CONCLUSION: SpineAssist offers enhanced performance in spinal surgery when compared to free-hand surgeries, by increasing placement accuracy and reducing neurologic risks. In addition, 49% of the cases reported herein used a percutaneous approach, highlighting the contribution of SpineAssist in procedures without anatomic landmarks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21079498     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d323ab

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  80 in total

1.  Fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw accuracy with a mini-open approach: a tomographic evaluation of 470 screws in 125 patients.

Authors:  José Antonio Soriano-Sánchez; Luis Alberto Ortega-Porcayo; Carlos Francisco Gutiérrez-Partida; Luis Rodolfo Ramírez-Barrios; Ramses Uriel Ortíz-Leyva; Manuel Rodríguez-García; Oscar Sánchez-Escandón
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-10-23

2.  Accuracy of thoracolumbar transpedicular and vertebral body percutaneous screw placement: coupling the Rosa® Spine robot with intraoperative flat-panel CT guidance--a cadaver study.

Authors:  M Lefranc; J Peltier
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-10-22

Review 3.  Robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hani J Marcus; Thomas P Cundy; Dipankar Nandi; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Evaluation of surgical strategy of conventional vs. percutaneous robot-assisted spinal trans-pedicular instrumentation in spondylodiscitis.

Authors:  Naureen Keric; David J Eum; Feroz Afghanyar; Izabela Rachwal-Czyzewicz; Mirjam Renovanz; Jens Conrad; Dominik M A Wesp; Sven R Kantelhardt; Alf Giese
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-06-09

Review 5.  The evolution of image-guided lumbosacral spine surgery.

Authors:  Austin C Bourgeois; Austin R Faulkner; Alexander S Pasciak; Yong C Bradley
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2015-04

Review 6.  Spine surgical robotics: review of the current application and disadvantages for future perspectives.

Authors:  Junshen Huang; Yuxi Li; Lin Huang
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-06-26

7.  Design methodology for a simulator of a robotic surgical system.

Authors:  Danielle L Julian; Roger D Smith; Alyssa D S Tanaka; Ariel Dubin
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-11-30

8.  Feasibility of laser-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement in the lumbar spine using a hybrid-OR.

Authors:  P H Richter; F Gebhard; M Salameh; K Schuetze; M Kraus
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 9.  Current state-of-the-art and future perspectives of robotic technology in neurosurgery.

Authors:  Tobias A Mattei; Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez; Deepak Sambhara; Ehud Mendel
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 3.042

10.  What is the learning curve for robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement in spine surgery?

Authors:  Xiaobang Hu; Isador H Lieberman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.