Literature DB >> 21162943

Learning curve of computer-assisted navigation system in spine surgery.

Yu-Shu Bai1, Ye Zhang, Zi-Qiang Chen, Chuan-Feng Wang, Ying-Chuan Zhao, Zhi-Cai Shi, Ming Li, Ka Po Gabriel Liu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery using computer-assisted navigation (CAN) has been proven to result in low screw misplacement rates, low incidence of radiation exposure and excellent operative field viewing versus the conventional intraoperative image intensifier (CIII). However, as we know, few previous studies have described the learning curve of CAN in spine surgery.
METHODS: We performed two consecutive case cohort studies on pedicel screw accuracy and operative time of two spine surgeons with different experience backgrounds, A and B, in one institution during the same period. Lumbar pedicel screw cortical perforation rate and operative time of the same kind of operation using CAN were analyzed and compared using CIII for the two surgeons at initial, 6 months and 12 months of CAN usage.
RESULTS: CAN spine surgery had an overall lower cortical perforation rate and less mean operative time compared with CIII for both surgeon A and B cohorts when total cases of four years were included. It missed being statistically significant, with 3.3% versus 4.7% (P = 0.191) and 125.7 versus 132.3 minutes (P = 0.428) for surgeon A and 3.6% versus 6.4% (P = 0.058), and 183.2 versus 213.2 minutes (P = 0.070) for surgeon B. In an attempt to demonstrate the learning curve, the cases after 6 months of the CAN system in each surgeon's cohort were compared. The perforation rate decreased by 2.4% (P = 0.039) and 4.3% (P = 0.003) and the operative time was reduced by 31.8 minutes (P = 0.002) and 14.4 minutes (P = 0.026) for the CAN groups of surgeons A and B, respectively. When only the cases performed after 12 months using the CAN system were considered, the perforation rate decreased by 3.9% (P = 0.006) and 5.6% (P < 0.001) and the operative time was reduced by 20.9 minutes (P < 0.001) and 40.3 minutes (P < 0.001) for the CAN groups of surgeon A and B, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In the long run, CAN spine surgery decreased the lumbar screw cortical perforation rate and operative time. The learning curve showed a sharp drop after 6 months of using CAN that plateaued after 12 months; which was demonstrated by both perforation rate and operative time data. Careful analysis of the data showed CAN is especially useful for less experienced surgeon to reduce perforation rate and intraoperative time, although further comparative studies are anticipated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21162943

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)        ISSN: 0366-6999            Impact factor:   2.628


  11 in total

Review 1.  Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials?

Authors:  Tao Cheng; Song Zhao; Xiaochun Peng; Xianlong Zhang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ahmed A Aoude; Maryse Fortin; Rainer Figueiredo; Peter Jarzem; Jean Ouellet; Michael H Weber
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Effect of Instrument Navigation on C-arm Radiation and Time during Spinal Procedures: A Clinical Evaluation.

Authors:  Timothy Y Wang; Farah Hamouda; Vikram A Mehta; Eric W Sankey; Chester Yarbrough; Robert Lark; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-06-30

4.  A multicenter study of the 5-year trends in robot-assisted spine surgery outcomes and complications.

Authors:  Nathan J Lee; Eric Leung; Ian A Buchanan; Matthew Geiselmann; Josephine R Coury; Matthew E Simhon; Scott Zuckerman; Avery L Buchholz; John Pollina; Ehsan Jazini; Colin Haines; Thomas C Schuler; Christopher R Good; Joseph Lombardi; Ronald A Lehman
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-03

5.  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

Review 6.  Robotic-Assisted Spine Surgery: History, Efficacy, Cost, And Future Trends.

Authors:  Marissa D'Souza; Julian Gendreau; Austin Feng; Lily H Kim; Allen L Ho; Anand Veeravagu
Journal:  Robot Surg       Date:  2019-11-07

7.  Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Robotic-Assisted Percutaneous Screw Placement: A Case Report.

Authors:  Luke McVeigh; Miracle C Anokwute; Andrew Huh; Nathaniel Blucker; Brandon C Lane
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-02-24

8.  Evaluation of K-wireless robotic and navigation assisted pedicle screw placement in adult degenerative spinal surgery: learning curve and technical notes.

Authors:  Fedan Avrumova; Kyle W Morse; Madison Heath; Roger F Widmann; Darren R Lebl
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-06

9.  Clinical and economic implications of early discharge following posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Nicholas D Fletcher; Nader Shourbaji; Phillip M Mitchell; Timothy S Oswald; Dennis P Devito; Robert W Bruce
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2014-04-27       Impact factor: 1.548

10.  Anterior Cervical Osteophyte Resection for Treatment of Dysphagia.

Authors:  Joshua M Kolz; Mohammed A Alvi; Atiq R Bhatti; Marko N Tomov; Mohamad Bydon; Arjun S Sebastian; Benjamin D Elder; Ahmad N Nassr; Jeremy L Fogelson; Bradford L Currier; Brett A Freedman
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-03-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.