Hao Liu1, Weikai Chen1, Zongyi Wang1, Jun Lin1, Bin Meng1, Huilin Yang2,3. 1. Department(s) and institution(s), Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China. 2. Department(s) and institution(s), Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China. szyhlspine@163.com. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China. szyhlspine@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the different of accuracy between robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement. METHODS: The electronic databases of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for the literatures published up to January, 2016. Statistical analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3. The dichotomous data for the pedicle violation rate were summarized using relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). The level of significance was set at [Formula: see text]. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients and 1105 screws were included in the five studies for this meta-analysis. The results revealed that there was no difference in the accuracy between robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement at the 0 mm grading criteria (RR 1.08, 95 % CI 0.86, 1.35, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) and at 2 mm grading criteria (RR 1.02, 95 % CI 0.68, 1.51, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). Among percutaneous robot-assisted technique, open robot-assisted technique and conventional freehand technique, there was also no significant difference at 0mm grading criteria (RO(P) vs FH : RR 1.10, 95 % CI 0.87, 1.40, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]; RO(O) versus FH : RR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.55, 1.38, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]; RO(P) vs RO(O): RR 1.20, 95 % CI 0.65, 2.24, [Formula: see text]) and at 2 mm grading criteria(RO(P) vs FH : RR 1.07, 95 % CI 0.43, 2.67, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]; RO(O) vs FH : RR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.36, 1.39, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]; RO(P) vs RO(O) : RR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.36, 1.94, [Formula: see text]). CONCLUSION: Further high-quality studies are required to unequivocally recommend one surgical technique over the other. With the more application of robot-assisted navigation system, accuracy and clinical benefit of the technique will be gradually improved.
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the different of accuracy between robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement. METHODS: The electronic databases of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for the literatures published up to January, 2016. Statistical analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3. The dichotomous data for the pedicle violation rate were summarized using relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). The level of significance was set at [Formula: see text]. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients and 1105 screws were included in the five studies for this meta-analysis. The results revealed that there was no difference in the accuracy between robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement at the 0 mm grading criteria (RR 1.08, 95 % CI 0.86, 1.35, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) and at 2 mm grading criteria (RR 1.02, 95 % CI 0.68, 1.51, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). Among percutaneous robot-assisted technique, open robot-assisted technique and conventional freehand technique, there was also no significant difference at 0mm grading criteria (RO(P) vs FH : RR 1.10, 95 % CI 0.87, 1.40, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]; RO(O) versus FH : RR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.55, 1.38, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]; RO(P) vs RO(O): RR 1.20, 95 % CI 0.65, 2.24, [Formula: see text]) and at 2 mm grading criteria(RO(P) vs FH : RR 1.07, 95 % CI 0.43, 2.67, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]; RO(O) vs FH : RR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.36, 1.39, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]; RO(P) vs RO(O) : RR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.36, 1.94, [Formula: see text]). CONCLUSION: Further high-quality studies are required to unequivocally recommend one surgical technique over the other. With the more application of robot-assisted navigation system, accuracy and clinical benefit of the technique will be gradually improved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accuracy; Navigation; Pedicle screw; Robot assisted; Spinal surgery
Authors: Dennis P Devito; 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 Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Ioannis D Gelalis; Nikolaos K Paschos; Emilios E Pakos; Angelos N Politis; Christina M Arnaoutoglou; Athanasios C Karageorgos; Avraam Ploumis; Theodoros A Xenakis Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Ioannis Pechlivanis; George Kiriyanthan; Martin Engelhardt; Martin Scholz; Sebastian Lücke; Albrecht Harders; Kirsten Schmieder Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Carlos Eduardo Barsotti; Bruno Moreira Gavassi; Francisco Eugenio Prado; Bernardo Nogueira Batista; Raphael de Resende Pratali; Ana Paula Ribeiro; Carlos Eduardo Soares de Oliveira; Ricardo Rodrigues Ferreira Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Gustav Burström; Marcin Balicki; Alexandru Patriciu; Sean Kyne; Aleksandra Popovic; Ronald Holthuizen; Robert Homan; Halldor Skulason; Oscar Persson; Erik Edström; Adrian Elmi-Terander Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 4.379