STUDY DESIGN: A meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: Through meta-analysis, whether RA techniques are superior to conventional freehand (FH) techniques was determined in terms of cranial facet joint protection and four other clinical indexes, namely, the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, the number of surgical revision due to malposition, intraoperative radiation dose, and operative time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cranial facet joint violation (FJV) is an important risk factor for adjacent segment degeneration. Some studies recommended the use of robot-assisted (RA) pedicle screw placement in reducing the rate of cranial FJV instead of conventional FH pedicle screw placement. However, the superiority of RA techniques to FH techniques remains controversial. METHODS: A comprehensive search on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang was conducted for the selection of potential eligible literature. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3. The subgroup analyses of the violation of the cranial facet joint and the accuracy of pedicle screw placement were performed on the basis of robot type. RESULT: Three randomized controlled trials, two prospective cohort study, and one retrospective cohort study consisting of 783 patients and 2694 cranial pedicle screws were included in the meta-analysis. RA pedicle screw placement was associated with significantly fewer cranial FJVs than FH screw placement. Subgroup analyses showed that the Renaissance (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.07-0.56) and TINAVI (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.09-0.38) robots under RA techniques were associated with significantly fewer cranial FJVs than FH techniques. Furthermore, the RA techniques showed more accurate pedicle screw placement and lower intraoperative radiation dose, equivalent number of surgical revision due to malposition, but longer operative time than the FH techniques. CONCLUSION: The RA (Renaissance and TINAVI) techniques are superior to conventional FH techniques in terms of protecting the cranial facet joint. RA techniques are accurate and safe in clinical application. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
STUDY DESIGN: A meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: Through meta-analysis, whether RA techniques are superior to conventional freehand (FH) techniques was determined in terms of cranial facet joint protection and four other clinical indexes, namely, the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, the number of surgical revision due to malposition, intraoperative radiation dose, and operative time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cranial facet joint violation (FJV) is an important risk factor for adjacent segment degeneration. Some studies recommended the use of robot-assisted (RA) pedicle screw placement in reducing the rate of cranial FJV instead of conventional FH pedicle screw placement. However, the superiority of RA techniques to FH techniques remains controversial. METHODS: A comprehensive search on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang was conducted for the selection of potential eligible literature. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3. The subgroup analyses of the violation of the cranial facet joint and the accuracy of pedicle screw placement were performed on the basis of robot type. RESULT: Three randomized controlled trials, two prospective cohort study, and one retrospective cohort study consisting of 783 patients and 2694 cranial pedicle screws were included in the meta-analysis. RA pedicle screw placement was associated with significantly fewer cranial FJVs than FH screw placement. Subgroup analyses showed that the Renaissance (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.07-0.56) and TINAVI (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.09-0.38) robots under RA techniques were associated with significantly fewer cranial FJVs than FH techniques. Furthermore, the RA techniques showed more accurate pedicle screw placement and lower intraoperative radiation dose, equivalent number of surgical revision due to malposition, but longer operative time than the FH techniques. CONCLUSION: The RA (Renaissance and TINAVI) techniques are superior to conventional FH techniques in terms of protecting the cranial facet joint. RA techniques are accurate and safe in clinical application. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.