Literature DB >> 35849162

Robotics in spine surgery: systematic review of literature.

Ignacio Barrio Lopez1, Ahmed Benzakour2, Andreas Mavrogenis3, Thami Benzakour4, Alaaeldin Ahmad5, Jean-Michel Lemée6,7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Over 4.83 million spine surgery procedures are performed annually around the world. With the considerable caseload and the precision needed to achieve optimal spinal instrumentation, technical progress has helped to improve the technique's safety and accuracy with the development of peri-operative assistance tools. Contrary to other surgical applications already part of the standard of care, the development of robotics in spine surgery is still a novelty and is not widely available nor used. Robotics, especially when coupled with other guidance modalities such as navigation, seems to be a promising tool in our quest for accuracy, improving patient outcomes and reducing surgical complications. Robotics in spine surgery may also be for the surgeon a way to progress in terms of ergonomics, but also to respond to a growing concern among surgical teams to reduce radiation exposure.
METHOD: We present in this recent systematic review of the literature realized according to the PRISMA guidelines the place of robotics in spine surgery, reviewing the comparison to standard techniques, the current and future indications, the learning curve, the impact on radiation exposure, and the cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS: Seventy-six relevant original studies were identified and analyzed for the review.
CONCLUSION: Robotics has proved to be a safe help for spine surgery, both for the patient with a decrease of operating time and increase in pedicular screw accuracy, and for the surgical team with a decrease of radiation exposure. Medico-economic studies demonstrated that despite a high buying cost, the purchase of a robot dedicated for spine surgery is cost-effective resulting in lesser revision, lower infection, reduced length of stay, and shorter surgical procedure.
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pedicle screw; Robotics; Spine; Systematic review

Year:  2022        PMID: 35849162     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05508-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.479


  44 in total

1.  A method of spinal fusion.

Authors:  H H BOUCHER
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1959-05

2.  Osteosynthesis of thoraco-lumbar spine fractures with metal plates screwed through the vertebral pedicles.

Authors:  R Roy-Camille; G Saillant; D Berteaux; V Salgado
Journal:  Reconstr Surg Traumatol       Date:  1976

3.  Comparison of cranial facet joint violation rates between open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement using intraoperative 3-D CT (O-arm) computer navigation.

Authors:  Sharon C Yson; Jonathan N Sembrano; Peter C Sanders; Edward Rainier G Santos; Charles Gerald T Ledonio; David W Polly
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo.

Authors:  S D Gertzbein; S E Robbins
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective matched-control analysis for clinical and quality-of-life outcomes.

Authors:  Xiuyuan Chen; Qingxin Song; Kun Wang; Zhi Chen; Yingchao Han; Hongxing Shen; Quan Li
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 1.744

6.  Robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-institution, observational, case-control study.

Authors:  Ming-Chin Lin; Heng-Wei Liu; Yu-Kai Su; Wei-Lun Lo; Chien-Min Lin
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 4.047

7.  Evaluating robotic pedicle screw placement against conventional modalities: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anant Naik; Alexander D Smith; Annabelle Shaffer; David T Krist; Christina M Moawad; Bailey R MacInnis; Kevin Teal; Wael Hassaneen; Paul M Arnold
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 4.047

8.  Pedicle Screw Insertion: Is O-Arm-Based Navigation Superior to the Conventional Freehand Technique? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jun Sun; Dongying Wu; Qiuan Wang; Yangyang Wei; Feng Yuan
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 2.104

9.  Risk factors for robot-assisted spinal pedicle screw malposition.

Authors:  Jia Nan Zhang; Yong Fan; Ding Jun Hao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Accuracy and safety of robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw placement: a comparison of robot-assisted technique with fluoroscopy-assisted approach.

Authors:  Yue Li; Long Chen; Yuzeng Liu; Hongtao Ding; Hongyi Lu; Aixing Pan; Xinuo Zhang; Yong Hai; Li Guan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.