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.

Abstract

Study Design:Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Objective:This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed with the aim of exploring the differences in pedicle screw positioning accuracy, surgical time, length of hospital stay, postoperative back and leg Visual Analog Scale, revision surgeries, and intraoperative radiation time and exposure between robot-assisted technology and conventional freehand technique based on RCTs.Methods:Several databases, including the Cochrane library, PubMed, and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify potentially eligible articles. Meta-analysis was done using STATA 13 software. The odds ratios and 95% CIs were calculated for the studied categories.Results:Seven RCTs involving 290 patients (1298 pedicle screws) in the robot-assisted group and 288 patients (1348 pedicle screws) in the conventional freehand group were analyzed. The results revealed that grade (A) and grade (A+B) screw accuracies were significantly superior in the robot-assisted group (P = .008 and P = .009, respectively). Overall surgical duration and number of revision surgeries were significantly higher in the robot-assisted group (P = .014 and P < .0001, respectively). Intraoperative radiation time and dosage were significantly lower in the robot-assisted group (P < .0001 and P = .036, respectively).Conclusion:It was demonstrated that robot-assisted technology is superior to the conventional freehand technique in terms of grade (A) and grade (A+B) screw accuracies and in the reduction of intraoperative radiation time and dosage. On the other hand, the freehand technique showed superior results in terms of overall surgical duration and revision surgery rates.