Literature DB >> 35441099

A multicenter study of the 5-year trends in robot-assisted spine surgery outcomes and complications.

Nathan J Lee1, Eric Leung1, Ian A Buchanan1, Matthew Geiselmann2, Josephine R Coury1, Matthew E Simhon1, Scott Zuckerman1, Avery L Buchholz3, John Pollina4, Ehsan Jazini5, Colin Haines5, Thomas C Schuler5, Christopher R Good5, Joseph Lombardi1, Ronald A Lehman1.   

Abstract

Background: Although a growing amount of literature that suggests robots are safe and can achieve comparable outcomes to conventional techniques, much of this literature is limited by small sample sizes and single-surgeon or single center series. Furthermore, it is unclear what the impact of robotic technology has made on operative and clinical outcomes over time. This is the first and largest multicenter study to examine the trends in outcomes and complications after robot-assisted spine surgery over a 5-year period.
Methods: Adult (≥18 years old) patients who underwent spine surgery with robot-assistance between 2015 and 2019 at four unique spine centers. The robotic systems used included the Mazor Renaissance, Mazor X, and Mazor Stealth Edition. Patients with incomplete data were excluded from this study. The minimum follow-up was 90 days.
Results: A total of 722 adult patients were included (117 Renaissance, 477 X, 128 Stealth). Most patient and operative factors (e.g., sex, tobacco status, total instrumented levels, and pelvic fixation,) were similar across the years. Mean ± standard deviation Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was 1.5±1.5. The most commonly reported diagnoses included high grade spondylolisthesis (40.6%), degenerative disc disease (18.4%), and degenerative scoliosis (17.6%). Mean (standard deviation) number of instrumented levels was 3.8±3.4. From 2015 to 2019, average robot time per screw improved from 7.2 to 5.5 minutes (P=0.004, R2=0.649). Average fluoroscopy time per screw improved from 15.2 to 9.4 seconds (P=0.002). Rates of both intraoperative screw exchange for misplaced screw (2015-2016: 2.7%, 2019: 0.8%, P=0.0115, R2=0.1316) and robot abandonment (2015-2016: 7.1%, 2019: 1.1%, P=0.011, R2=0.215) improved significantly over time. The incidence of other intraoperative complications (e.g., dural tear, loss of motor/sensory function, blood transfusion) remained consistently low, but similar throughout the years. The length of stay (LOS) decreased by nearly 1 day from 2015 to 2019 (P=0.007, R2=0.779). 90-day reoperation rates did not change significantly. Conclusions: At four institutions among seven surgeons, we demonstrate robot screw accuracy, reliability, operative efficiency, and radiation exposure improved significantly from 2015 to 2019. 90-day complication rates remained low and LOS decreased significantly with time. These findings further validate continued usage of robot-assisted spine surgery and the path toward improved value-based care. 2022 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Robot-assisted spine surgery; pedicle screw; robot abandonment; short-term complications

Year:  2022        PMID: 35441099      PMCID: PMC8990386          DOI: 10.21037/jss-21-102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  41 in total

Review 1.  A review of medical robotics for minimally invasive soft tissue surgery.

Authors:  G Dogangil; B L Davies; F Rodriguez y Baena
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.617

2.  Minimally Invasive Robotic Versus Open Fluoroscopic-guided Spinal Instrumented Fusions: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Seung-Jae Hyun; Ki-Jeong Kim; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI clinical competence statement on physician knowledge to optimize patient safety and image quality in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training.

Authors:  John W Hirshfeld; Stephen Balter; Jeffrey A Brinker; Morton J Kern; Lloyd W Klein; Bruce D Lindsay; Carl L Tommaso; Cynthia M Tracy; Louis K Wagner; Mark A Creager; Michael Elnicki; Beverly H Lorell; George P Rodgers; Howard H Weitz
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-02-01       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Clinical pedicle screw accuracy and deviation from planning in robot-guided spine surgery: robot-guided pedicle screw accuracy.

Authors:  Joris D van Dijk; Roy P J van den Ende; Stefano Stramigioli; Matthias Köchling; Norbert Höss
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 5.  Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement and Clinical Outcomes of Robot-assisted Technique Versus Conventional Freehand Technique in Spine Surgery From Nine Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hui-Min Li; Ren-Jie Zhang; Cai-Liang Shen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

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

Authors:  Xiaoguang Han; Wei Tian; Yajun Liu; Bo Liu; Da He; Yuqing Sun; Xiao Han; Mingxing Fan; Jingwei Zhao; Yunfeng Xu; Qi Zhang
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2019-02-08

7.  Robotic Guidance for S2-Alar-Iliac Screws in Spinal Deformity Correction.

Authors:  S Samuel Bederman; Peter Hahn; Vincent Colin; P Douglas Kiester; Nitin N Bhatia
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.876

Review 8.  Robotic surgery in gynecology.

Authors:  Ibrahim Alkatout; Liselotte Mettler; Nicolai Maass; Johannes Ackermann
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2016-12-01

9.  Accuracy of S2 Alar-Iliac Screw Placement Under Robotic Guidance.

Authors:  Joseph L Laratta; Jamal N Shillingford; Joseph M Lombardi; Rami G Alrabaa; Barlas Benkli; Charla Fischer; Lawrence G Lenke; Ronald A Lehman
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2017-10-16

10.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Integration of Robotic Spine Technology in Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Richard Philip Menger; Amey R Savardekar; Frank Farokhi; Anthony Sin
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2018-08-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.