Literature DB >> 28463624

Evaluation of robot-guided minimally invasive implantation of 2067 pedicle screws.

Naureen Keric1, Christian Doenitz2, Amer Haj2, Izabela Rachwal-Czyzewicz3, Mirjam Renovanz1, Dominik M A Wesp1, Stephan Boor3, Jens Conrad1, Alexander Brawanski2, Alf Giese1, Sven R Kantelhardt1.   

Abstract

Objective Recent studies have investigated the role of spinal image guidance for pedicle screw placement. Many authors have observed an elevated placement accuracy and overall improvement of outcome measures. This study assessed a bi-institutional experience following introduction of the Renaissance miniature robot for spinal image guidance in Europe. Methods The medical records and radiographs of all patients who underwent robot-guided implantation of spinal instrumentation using the novel system (between October 2011 and March 2015 in Mainz and February 2014 and February 2016 in Regensburg) were reviewed to determine the efficacy and safety of the newly introduced robotic system. Screw position accuracy, complications, exposure durations to intraoperative radiation, and reoperation rate were assessed. Results Of the 413 surgeries that used robotic guidance, 406 were via a minimally invasive approach. In 7 cases the surgeon switched to conventional screw placement, using a midline approach, due to referencing problems. A total of 2067 screws were implanted using robotic guidance, and 1857 screws were evaluated by postoperative CT. Of the 1857 screws, 1799 (96.9%) were classified as having an acceptable or good position, whereas 38 screws (2%) showed deviations of 3-6 mm and 20 screws (1.1%) had deviations > 6 mm. Nine misplaced screws, implanted in 7 patients, required revision surgery, yielding a screw revision rate of 0.48% of the screws and 7 of 406 (1.7%) of the patients. The mean ± SD per-patient intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure was 114.4 (± 72.5) seconds for 5.1 screws on average and any further procedure required. Perioperative and direct postoperative complications included hemorrhage (2 patients, 0.49%) and wound infections necessitating surgical revision (20 patients, 4.9%). Conclusions The hexapod miniature robotic device proved to be a safe and robust instrument in all situations, including those in which patients were treated on an emergency basis. Placement accuracy was high; peri- and early postoperative complication rates were found to be lower than rates published in other series of percutaneous screw placement techniques. Intraoperative radiation exposure was found to be comparable to published values for other minimally invasive and conventional approaches.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BMI = body mass index; PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; pedicle screw; percutaneous; robot-guided instrumentation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28463624     DOI: 10.3171/2017.2.FOCUS16552

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


  26 in total

Review 1.  Robotic-assisted cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws using the Mazor X Stealth Edition (MXSE) system: workflow and technical tips for safe and efficient use.

Authors:  John A Buza; Jeffrey L Gum; Christopher R Good; Ronald A Lehman; John Pollina; Richard V Chua; Avery L Buchholz
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-09-28

2.  Robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Shutao Gao; Zhengtao Lv; Huang Fang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-10-14       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  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

4.  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

Review 5.  Artificial intelligence in spine surgery.

Authors:  Ahmed Benzakour; Pavlos Altsitzioglou; Jean Michel Lemée; Alaaeldin Ahmad; Andreas F Mavrogenis; Thami Benzakour
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 3.479

Review 6.  Less Invasive Pediatric Spinal Deformity Surgery: The Case for Robotic-Assisted Placement of Pedicle Screws.

Authors:  Kyle W Morse; Hila Otremski; Kira Page; Roger F Widmann
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2021-07-08

7.  [A comparative study of spinal robot-assisted and traditional fluoroscopy-assisted percutaneous reduction and internal fixation for single-level thoracolumbar fractures without neurological symptoms].

Authors:  Ye Tian; Jianan Zhang; Hao Chen; Keyuan Ding; Tuanjiang Liu; Dageng Huang; Dingjun Hao
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-01-15

8.  Initial Single-Institution Experience With a Novel Robotic-Navigation System for Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw and Pelvic Screw Placement With 643 Screws.

Authors:  Deeptee Jain; Jordan Manning; Elizabeth Lord; Themistocles Protopsaltis; Yong Kim; Aaron J Buckland; John Bendo; Charla Fischer; Jeffrey Goldstein
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-10-31

9.  Robotic-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement During Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Isador H Lieberman; Stanley Kisinde; Shea Hesselbacher
Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech       Date:  2020-05-21

10.  Application of Spinal Robotic Navigation Technology to Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Treatment of Spinal Fractures: A Clinical, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study.

Authors:  Bin Shi; Tianyu Jiang; Hailong Du; Wei Zhang; Lei Hu; Lihai Zhang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 2.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.