Literature DB >> 28463610

Revisions for screw malposition and clinical outcomes after robot-guided lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis.

Marc L Schröder1, Victor E Staartjes1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The accuracy of robot-guided pedicle screw placement has been proven to be high, but little is known about the impact of such guidance on clinical outcomes such as the rate of revision surgeries for screw malposition. In addition, there are very few data about the impact of robot-guided fusion on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Thus, the clinical benefit for the patient is unclear. In this study, the authors analyzed revision rates for screw malposition and changes in PROs following minimally invasive robot-guided pedicle screw fixation. METHODS A retrospective cohort study of patients who had undergone minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MI-PLIF) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was performed. Patients were followed up clinically at 6 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months after treatment and by mailed questionnaire in March 2016 as a final follow-up. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), screw revisions, and socio-demographic factors were analyzed. A literature review was performed, comparing the incidence of intraoperative screw revisions and revision surgery for screw malposition in robot-guided, navigated, and freehand fusion procedures. RESULTS Seventy-two patients fit the study inclusion criteria and had a mean follow up of 32 ± 17 months. No screws had to be revised intraoperatively, and no revision surgery for screw malposition was needed. In the literature review, the authors found a higher rate of intraoperative screw revisions in the navigated pool than in the robot-guided pool (p < 0.001, OR 9.7). Additionally, a higher incidence of revision surgery for screw malposition was observed for freehand procedures than for the robot-guided procedures (p < 0.001, OR 8.1). The VAS score for back pain improved significantly from 66.9 ± 25.0 preoperatively to 30.1 ± 26.8 at the final follow-up, as did the VAS score for leg pain (from 70.6 ± 22.8 to 24.3 ± 28.3) and ODI (from 43.4 ± 18.3 to 16.2 ± 16.7; all p < 0.001). Undergoing PLIF, a high body mass index, smoking status, and a preoperative ability to work were identified as predictors of a reduction in back pain. Length of hospital stay was 2.4 ± 1.1 days and operating time was 161 ± 50 minutes. Ability to work increased from 38.9% to 78.2% of patients (p < 0.001) at the final follow-up, and 89.1% of patients indicated they would choose to undergo the same treatment again. CONCLUSIONS In adults with low-grade spondylolisthesis, the data demonstrated a benefit in using robotic guidance to reduce the rate of revision surgery for screw malposition as compared with other techniques of pedicle screw insertion described in peer-reviewed publications. Larger comparative studies are required to assess differences in PROs following a minimally invasive approach in spinal fusion surgeries compared with other techniques.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BMI = body mass index; FH = freehand; K-wire = Kirschner wire; MCID = minimum clinically important difference; MI-PLIF = minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion; MI-TLIF = MI transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; MIS = minimally invasive surgery; NV = navigated; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PRO = patient-reported outcome; RG = robot guided; VAS-BP = visual analog scale for back pain; VAS-LP = VAS for leg pain; lumbar interbody fusion; malposition; minimally invasive; pedicle screws; revision; revision surgery; robot; spondylolisthesis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28463610     DOI: 10.3171/2017.3.FOCUS16534

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Focus        ISSN: 1092-0684            Impact factor:   4.047


  20 in total

1.  Reduction in complication and revision rates for robotic-guided short-segment lumbar fusion surgery: results of a prospective, multi-center study.

Authors:  Jason I Liounakos; Vignessh Kumar; Aria Jamshidi; Zmira Silman; Christopher R Good; Samuel R Schroerlucke; Andrew Cannestra; Victor Hsu; Jae Lim; Faissal Zahrawi; Pedro M Ramirez; Thomas M Sweeney; Michael Y Wang
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-01-01

2.  Impact of robot-assisted spine surgery on health care quality and neurosurgical economics: A systemic review.

Authors:  Brian Fiani; Syed A Quadri; Mudassir Farooqui; Alessandra Cathel; Blake Berman; Jerry Noel; Javed Siddiqi
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 3.  Robotics in trauma and orthopaedics.

Authors:  Karthik Karuppiah; Joydeep Sinha
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  External validation of a prediction model for pain and functional outcome after elective lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Ayesha Quddusi; Hubert A J Eversdijk; Anita M Klukowska; Marlies P de Wispelaere; Julius M Kernbach; Marc L Schröder; Victor E Staartjes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  When giants talk; robotic dialog during thoracolumbar and sacral surgery.

Authors:  Josh E Schroeder; Saadit Houri; Yoram A Weil; Meir Liebergall; Rami Moshioff; Leon Kaplan
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Comparison of robot-assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement for lumbar revision surgery.

Authors:  Jia-Nan Zhang; Yong Fan; Xin He; Tuan-Jiang Liu; Ding-Jun Hao
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  [Short-term effectiveness comparison between robotic-guided percutaneous minimally invasive pedicle screw internal fixation and traditional open internal fixation in treatment of thoracolumbar fractures].

Authors:  Shu Lin; Jiang Hu; Lun Wan; Liuyi Tang; Yue Wang; Yang Yu; Wei Zhang
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-01-15

8.  A minimally invasive, 3D-fluoroscopy-navigation-guided, 3D-controlled pedicle approach in spine surgery: first reliable results and impact on patient safety.

Authors:  André El Saman; Simon Lars Meier; Ingo Marzi
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 3.693

9.  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

10.  Can Postoperative CT Imaging in Spine Surgery Be Replaced by Intraoperative 3D Rotation With the C-Arm?: Results of a Prospective Single Center Cohort Study.

Authors:  Mohammed Banat; Johannes Wach; Abdallah Salemdawod; Lisa Domurath; Jasmin Scorzin; Hartmut Vatter
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2021-07-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.