Literature DB >> 30738398

Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Xiaoguang Han1,2, Wei Tian1,2, Yajun Liu1,2, Bo Liu1,2, Da He1,2, Yuqing Sun1,2, Xiao Han1,2, Mingxing Fan1,2, Jingwei Zhao1,2, Yunfeng Xu1,2, Qi Zhang1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVEThe object of this study was to compare the safety and accuracy of pedicle screw placement using the TiRobot system versus conventional fluoroscopy in thoracolumbar spinal surgery.METHODSPatients with degenerative or traumatic thoracolumbar spinal disorders requiring spinal instrumentation were randomly assigned to either the TiRobot-assisted group (RG) or the freehand fluoroscopy-assisted group (FG) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of screw placement according to the Gertzbein-Robbins scale; grades A and B (pedicle breach < 2 mm) were considered clinically acceptable. In the RG, discrepancies between the planned and actual screw placements were measured by merging postoperative CT images with the trajectory planning images. Secondary outcome parameters included proximal facet joint violation, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to freehand approach in the RG, postoperative hospital stay, and radiation exposure.RESULTSA total of 1116 pedicle screws were implanted in 234 patients (119 in the FG, and 115 in the RG). In the RG, 95.3% of the screws were perfectly positioned (grade A); the remaining screws were graded B (3.4%), C (0.9%), and D (0.4%). In the FG, 86.1% screws were perfectly positioned (grade A); the remaining screws were graded B (7.4%), C (4.6%), D (1.4%), and E (0.5%). The proportion of clinically acceptable screws was significantly greater in the RG than in the FG (p < 0.01). In the RG, the mean deviation was 1.5 ± 0.8 mm for each screw. The most common direction of screw deviation was lateral in the RG and medial in the FG. Two misplaced screws in the FG required revision surgery, whereas no revision was required in the RG. None of the screws in the RG violated the proximal facet joint, whereas 12 screws (2.1%) in the FG violated the proximal facet joint (p < 0.01). The RG had significantly less blood loss (186.0 ± 255.3 ml) than the FG (217.0 ± 174.3 ml; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of surgical time and postoperative hospital stay. The mean cumulative radiation time was 81.5 ± 38.6 seconds in the RG and 71.5 ± 44.2 seconds in the FG (p = 0.07). Surgeon radiation exposure was significantly less in the RG (21.7 ± 11.5 μSv) than in the FG (70.5 ± 42.0 μSv; p < 0.01).CONCLUSIONSTiRobot-guided pedicle screw placement is safe and useful in thoracolumbar spinal surgery.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02890043 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Entities:  

Keywords:  FG = freehand group; RG = robotic group; computer-assisted surgery; lumbar; pedicle screw; robotic surgery; spinal fusion; thoracic

Year:  2019        PMID: 30738398     DOI: 10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18487

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  43 in total

1.  Computer-Assisted Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery.

Authors:  Timo Stübig; Henning Windhagen; Christian Krettek; Max Ettinger
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Radiological and clinical differences between robotic-assisted pedicle screw fixation with and without real-time optical tracking.

Authors:  Jinpeng Du; Lin Gao; Dageng Huang; Lequn Shan; Wentao Wang; Yong Fan; Dingjun Hao; Liang Yan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Robotics in spinal surgery.

Authors:  Matthew S Galetta; Joseph D Leider; Srikanth N Divi; Dhruv K C Goyal; Gregory D Schroeder
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

Review 4.  New spinal robotic technologies.

Authors:  Bowen Jiang; Tej D Azad; Ethan Cottrill; Corinna C Zygourakis; Alex M Zhu; Neil Crawford; Nicholas Theodore
Journal:  Front Med       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 4.592

5.  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

6.  Comparison of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Lianlei Wang; Chao Li; Zheng Wang; Donglai Li; Yonghao Tian; Suomao Yuan; Xinyu Liu
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-07-05

Review 7.  Negotiating for new technologies: guidelines for the procurement of assistive technologies in spinal surgery: a narrative review.

Authors:  Vincent J Rossi; Thomas A Wells-Quinn; Gregory M Malham
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-06

8.  [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

9.  [Robot-guided percutaneous kyphoplasty in treatment of multi-segmental osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture].

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:  2020-09-15

10.  A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Accuracy and Clinical Outcome of Pedicle Screw Placement Using Robot-Assisted Technology and Conventional Freehand Technique.

Authors:  Ahmad M Tarawneh; Khalid Mi Salem
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-06-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.