Pedicle Screw Placement Research Articles

Robotic-Assisted Spinal Surgery


 The use of robotic systems to aid in surgical procedures, including spinal surgeries, has been on the rise over the past several years.
 Systematic reviews and economic evaluations on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgical systems used for patients requiring spinal surgeries that do not involve pedicle screw placement are lacking.

Development and validation of an automated planning tool for navigated lumbosacral pedicle screws using a convolutional neural network

Background contextNavigation and robotic systems have been increasingly applied to spinal instrumentation but dedicated screw planning is a time-consuming prerequisite to tap the full potential of these techniques. PurposeTo develop and validate an automated planning tool for lumbosacral pedicle screw placement using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to facilitate the planning process. Study Design/SettingRetrospective analysis and processing of CT and screw planning data randomly selected from a consecutive registry of CT-navigated instrumentations from a single academic institution. Patient SampleData from 179 cases was processed for CNN training and validation (155 for training, 24 for validation) leveraging a total of 1182 screws (1052 for training, 130 for validation). Outcome MeasuresQuantitative and qualitative (Gertzbein-Robbins classification [GR]) validation via comparison of automatically and manually planned reference screws, inter-rater and intra-rater variability. MethodsAnnotated data from CT-navigated instrumentation was used to train a CNN operating in a vertebra instance-based approach employing a state-of-the-art U-Net framework. Internal five-fold cross-validation and external validation on an independent cohort not previously involved in training was performed. Quantitative validation of automatically planned screws was performed in comparison to corresponding manually planned screws by calculating the minimal absolute difference (MAD) of screw head and tip points, length and diameter, screw direction and Dice coefficient. Results were evaluated in relation to inter-rater and intra-rater variability of manual screw planning. ResultsAutomated screw planning was successful in all targeted 130 screws. Compared with manually planned screws as a reference, mean MAD of automatically planned screws was 4.61±2.27 mm for screw head, 3.96±2.19 mm for tip points and 5.51±3.64° for screw direction. These differences were either statistically comparable or significantly smaller when compared with interrater variability of manual screw planning (p>.99 for head point and direction, p=.004 for tip point, respectively). Mean Dice coefficient of 0.61±0.16 indicated significantly greater agreement of automatic screws with the manual reference compared with interrater agreement (Dice 0.56±0.18, p<.001). Automatically planned screws were marginally shorter (MAD 3.4±3.2 mm) and thinner (MAD mean 0.3±0.6 mm) compared with the manual reference, but with statistical significance (p<.0001, respectively). Automatically planned screws were GR grade A in 96.2% in qualitative validation. Planning time was significantly shorter with the automatic approach (0:41 min vs. 6:41 min, p<.0001). ConclusionsWe derived and validated a fully automated planning tool for lumbosacral pedicle screws using a CNN. Our validation showed noninferiority to manual screw planning and provided sufficient accuracy to facilitate and expedite the screw planning process. These results offer a high potential to improve workflows in spine surgery when integrated into navigation or robotic assistance systems.

Screw Insertion Time, Fluoroscopy Time, and Operation Time for Robotic-Assisted Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Compared With Freehand Technique.

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to clarify the superiority of robotic-assisted lumbar pedicle screw placement in terms of screw insertion time, fluoroscopy time, and operation time.MethodsThe subjects were 46 patients who underwent a posterior lumbar interbody fusion with an open procedure for lumbar degenerative disease from April 2021 to February 2022. The robot group contained 29 cases of screw insertion using a spine robotic system (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic Inc., Dublin, Ireland). The freehand group contained 17 cases of screw insertion with the freehand technique utilizing the conventional C-arm image guidance. The screw insertion time, fluoroscopy time, and operation time were compared between the robot and the freehand group.ResultsThe screw insertion time did not differ significantly between the two groups (robot group: 179.0 ± 65.2 sec; freehand group: 164.2 ± 83.4 sec; p = 0.507). The fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the robot group (robot group: 28.3 ± 25.8 sec; freehand group: 67.5 ± 72.8 sec; p = 0.011). The fluoroscopy time per segment was also significantly shorter in the robot group (robot group: 17.8 ± 23.0 sec; freehand group: 60.2 ± 74.8 sec; p = 0.007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robot group (robot group: 249.6 ± 72.5 min; freehand group: 195.8 ± 60.1 sec; p = 0.013), but the operation time per segment did not differ significantly between the two groups (robot group: 144.1 ± 39.0 min; freehand group: 159.7 ± 34.4 min; p = 0.477).ConclusionsThe screw insertion time and operation time per segment were similar when employing the spine robotic system compared to the freehand technique; however, the fluoroscopy time was shorter. The fluoroscopy time per segment in the robot group was 29.6% of the time of the freehand group using the C-arm. The surgeon's radiation exposure is thought to be decreased since the spine robotic system shortens the fluoroscopy time.

Learning Curve of ROSA ONE Spine System for Transpedicular Screw Placement.

ObjectiveThe study investigated our institutional learning curve for the ROSA ONE spine system (ROSA) based on ROSA usage time. MethodsROSA was designed to provide high accuracy for spinal pedicle screw placement through a built-in tracking technique. This study was conducted from November 2018 to January 2021. The time taken to complete each step of the robotic workflow was recorded. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical indications, and number of screw placements were examined in subgroup analysis. The Curve Fitting-General package (a part of NCSS 2021 software) was used to fit a mathematical model to the learning curve. Patient demographics, imaging data, and surgical time were reviewed retrospectively. ResultsA total of 167 patients who had undergone surgery were included. The mean total ROSA usage time was 107.1 ± 27.3 minutes. The estimated learning rate was 90.4%, and the largest slope change occurred close to the time of the 20th surgery. The observed overall learning trend in the 4-screw group could be attributed to screw planning. The presence of scoliosis (p = 0.73) or spondylolisthesis (p = 0.70) did not significantly influence the mean total time (TT) for all patients; however, the mean TT differed significantly (p < 0.01) among subgroups stratified by body mass index, screw number placement, and thoracic spine involvement. ConclusionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the learning curve for the various crucial steps of ROSA-guided pedicle screw placement. The indicative learning curve involved 20 patients who had undergone surgery.

Accuracy and safety of percutaneous pedicle screw placement using the K-wireless minimally invasive spine percutaneous pedicle screw system in Japan: A randomized active controlled study

BackgroundMinimally invasive lumbar fusion has recently become a widely used technique worldwide. This randomized active controlled study was conducted to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the K-wireless Minimally Invasive Spine (MIS) Percutaneous Pedicle Screw (PPS) system compared with use of the six pedicle screw systems currently used in our practices with respect to the accuracy of pedicle screw placement.Also to compare the screw-insertion time and number of fluoroscopic observations during screw insertion between the groups. MethodsA total of 80 patients with degenerative spinal diseases or vertebral fractures were assigned, including 41 patients in the K-wireless MIS PPS system group (K-wireless group) and 39 in the control group (K-wire group).The accuracy of the screw insertion, screw-insertion time, number of fluoroscopic observations during screw insertion, and the incidence of adverse events were compared between the K-wireless group and the K-wire group. The accuracy rate was calculated as the number of screws with no breach divided by the total number of screws. ResultsThe accuracy rates of screw insertion were 85.7% and 75.0% in the K-wireless and K-wire groups, respectively, with an intergroup difference of 10.7% (95% confidence interval: 2.3–19.1%). The K-wireless group demonstrated non-inferiority compared with the K-wire group. The mean screw-insertion time was significantly shorter in the K-wireless group (2.62 and 2.97 min in the K-wireless and K-wire groups, respectively; P=0.005). There were also significantly fewer fluoroscopies in the K-wireless group (10.7 and 17.4 in the K-wireless and K-wire groups, respectively; P<0.001). There were no device-related or study treatment-related adverse events in either group. ConclusionsThe accuracy of pedicle screw insertion using the K-wireless MIS PPS system was not inferior to that of existing products. In terms of safety, no product-related or treatment-related adverse events were identified in this study and no new safety concerns were noted.

O-Arm Navigated Cervical Pedicle Screw Fixation in the Treatment of Lower Cervical Fracture-Dislocation.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of cervical pedicle screw (CPS) placement with O‐arm navigation in the treatment of lower cervical fracture‐dislocation.MethodsA retrospective clinical study was performed involving 42 consecutive patients with lower cervical spine fracture‐dislocation who underwent CPS fixation surgery with O‐arm navigation (CPS group) or received conventional lateral mass screw (LMS) fixation surgery (LMS group) between August 2015 and August 2019. Accuracy of CPS position was evaluated by postoperative CT. The clinical parameters including preoperative and final follow‐up Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale, preoperative Sub‐axial Injury Classification (SLIC) score, number of fixation segments, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, injury mechanism, injury location, surgical complications were also assessed between the two groups.ResultsIn LMS group, the preoperative SLIC score was 7.5 ± 0.9, ASIA score improvement was 0.8 ± 0.5, JOA score improvement was 3.0 ± 1.8, mean operation time was 204 ± 89 min, intraoperative blood loss was 311 ± 127 ml. In CPS group, the preoperative SLIC score was 7.3 ± 1.2, ASIA score improvement was 0.9 ± 0.5, JOA score improvement was 3.2 ± 2.4, mean operation time is 241 ± 85 min, intraoperative blood loss is about 327 ± 120 ml. There was no significant difference in terms of above clinical parameters between the two groups (P > 0.05), the fixation segments in CPS group (3.5 ± 1.1) were less than that in LMS group (4.2 ± 0.7) (P = 0.037). The accuracy of CPS insertion was evaluated based on postoperative CT. Of all the 118 CPSs, 83 (70.3%) were defined as Grade 0; 27 (22.9%) as Grade 1; eight (6.8%) as Grade 2; and none as Grade 3. CPS malposition rate in this study was 6.8%. In this study, there was no direct intraoperative or postoperative complication caused by CPS or LMS insertion. All the operations were successfully completed in two groups. One of the patients in LMS group presented cerebrospinal fluid leak caused by bone fragment broken of the dural sac, which led to delayed incision healing. CPS group and LMS group both had two patients who suffered pulmonary infection after surgery. A total of 78.6% of the patients showed evidence of neurologic recovery. Satisfactory reduction was achieved in all cases and maintained throughout the follow‐up duration.ConclusionIn the treatment of lower cervical spine fracture‐dislocation, cervical pedicle screw insertion with O‐arm navigation is a safe and effective method for posterior fixation.

Development of a Robotic Spine Surgery Program: Rationale, Strategy, Challenges, and Monitoring of Outcomes After Implementation.

Surgical robots were invented in the 1980s, and since then, robotic-assisted surgery has become commonplace. In the field of spine surgery, robotic assistance is utilized mainly to place pedicle screws, and multiple studies have demonstrated that robots can increase the accuracy of screw placement and reduce radiation exposure to the patient and the surgeon. However, this may be at the cost of longer operative times, complications, and the risk of errors in mapping the patient's anatomy.

Template guided cervical pedicle screw instrumentation

BackgroundPedicle screw instrumentation of the cervical spine, although technically challenging due to the potential risk of serious neurovascular injuries, is biomechanically favorable for stabilization purposes. Patient-specific templates are increasingly used in the thoracolumbar spine with excellent accuracy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement with patient-specific templates in a clinical setting and to report the European experience so far. MethodsMulticentric, retrospectively obtained data of twelve patients who underwent dorsal instrumentation of the cervical spine with 3D-printed patient-specific templates were analyzed. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were used to evaluate pedicle perforation and screw deviations between the planned and actual screw position. Furthermore, surgical time, radiation exposure, blood loss and immediate postoperative complications were analyzed. ResultsA total of 86 screws were inserted, of which 82 (95.3%) were fully contained inside the pedicle. All perforations (four screws, 4.7%) were within the safe zone of 2 mm and did not result in any neurovascular complications. Overall, median deviation from planned entry point (Euclidean distance) was 1.2 mm (0.1 - 11 mm), median deviation from the planned trajectory (Euler angle) was 4.4° (0.2-71.5°), median axial and sagittal trajectory deviation from the planned trajectory were 2.5° (0 - 57.5°) and 3.3° (0 - 54.9°), respectively. Median operative time was 168 minutes (111 - 564 minutes), median blood loss was 300 ml (150 - 1300 ml) and median intraoperative fluoroscopic dose was 321.2 mGycm2 (102.4 - 825.0 mGycm2). Overall complications were one adjacent segment kyphosis, one transient C5 palsy and one wound healing disorder. ConclusionPatient-specific 3D-printed templates provide a highly accurate option for placing cervical pedicle screws for dorsal instrumentation of the cervical spine.

Ideal entry point and trajectory for C2 pedicle screw placement in basilar invagination patients with high-riding vertebral artery based on 3D computed tomography

BACKGROUNDC2 pedicle screw placement in patients with basilar invagination (BI) is fraught with risks because of a high incidence of anatomical variations and high-riding vertebral artery (HRVA). However, no study can be found in the literature that attempted to identify the ideal entry point and trajectory through the C2 pedicle in BI patients with HRVA. PURPOSETo investigate the parameters of ideal entry point and trajectory for C2 pedicle screw placement in BI patients with HRVA and compare them with those in BI patients without HRVA and patients without BI as control. These parameters would serve as a guide to pedicle screw placement. STUDY DESIGNA retrospective comparative study. PATIENT SAMPLEA total of 396 patients (198 consecutive BI patients and 198 matched patients without BI as control) and 792 unilateral pedicles from April 2017 to October 2021 at two medical centers were included. OUTCOME MEASURESThe insertion parameters of mediolateral angle, surface distance, cephalad angle, and vertical distance from the superior border of the lamina were the primary outcome measures for the reference of C2 pedicle screw placement. Furthermore, factors that affect the primary insertion parameters were assessed via multiple linear regression analyses. METHODAccording to the diagnosis of BI and HRVA, the unilateral pedicles were assigned into HRVA of BI, non-HRVA of BI, HRVA of control, and non-HRVA of control groups. Subgroup analyses based on Goel types A and B were also performed. Moreover, vertebral artery (VA) anomalies that might result in potentially serious complications were identified and systematically compared. RESULTSThe measurements of insertion parameters in BI patients with HRVA indicated a mean mediolateral angle of 27.42°, a mean cephalad angle of 43.02°, a mean surface distance of 9.74 mm, and a mean vertical distance from the superior border of the lamina of 3.85 mm. Compared with that in BI patients without HRVA, the measurements suggested that the entry point in BI patients with HRVA should be shifted upward by 0.38 mm and the trajectory should be angled cephalad by 6.05° and medially by 4.78°. In the control group, changes in the insertion parameters between HRVA and non-HRVA showed a similar trend to the BI group. Multiple linear regression showed that mediolateral angle was significantly associated with the male gender (B=−0.930, p=.017) and the diagnoses of HRVA (B=6.964, p<.001), Goel type A (B=−1.656, p=.003), and Goel type B (B=0.981, p=.030). Moreover, cephalad angle was significantly associated with the length of lateral mass (B=−0.319, p=.001) and the diagnoses of HRVA (B=3.254, p<.001) and Goel type A (B=6.924, p<.001). The VA anomalies were significantly higher in the BI group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONSThe insertion parameters of the ideal entry point and trajectory for C2 screw placement in BI patients with HRVA were remarkably different from those of non-HRVA of BI, HRVA of control, and non-HRVA of control cohorts. Preoperative 3D computed tomography (CT) and CT angiography are highly recommended in such patients to improve intraoperative safety and reduce postoperative complications.

Simulation Training in Spine Surgery.

Simulated surgery is part of a growing paradigm shift in surgical education as a whole. Various modalities from cadaver models to virtual reality have been developed and studied within the context of surgical education. Simulation training in spine surgery has an immense potential to improve education and ultimately improve patient safety. This is due to the inherent risk of operating the spine and the technical difficulty of modern techniques. Common procedures in the modern orthopaedic armamentarium, such as pedicle screw placement, can be simulated, and proficiency is rapidly achieved before application in patients. Furthermore, complications such as dural tears can be simulated and effectively managed in a safe environment with simulation. New techniques with steeper learning curves, such as minimally invasive techniques, can now be safely simulated. Hence, augmenting surgical education through simulation has great potential to benefit trainees and practicing orthopaedic surgeons in modern spine surgery techniques. Additional work will aim to improve access to such technologies and integrate them into the current orthopaedic training curriculum.

Ninety-day complication, revision, and readmission rates for current-generation robot-assisted thoracolumbar spinal fusion surgery: results of a multicenter case series.

Robotics is a major area for research and development in spine surgery. The high accuracy of robot-assisted placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws is documented in the literature. The authors present the largest case series to date evaluating 90-day complication, revision, and readmission rates for robot-assisted spine surgery using the current generation of robotic guidance systems. An analysis of a retrospective, multicenter database of open and minimally invasive thoracolumbar instrumented fusion surgeries using the Mazor X or Mazor X Stealth Edition robotic guidance systems was performed. Patients 18 years of age or older and undergoing primary or revision surgery for degenerative spinal conditions were included. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate rates of malpositioned screws requiring revision, as well as overall complication, revision, and readmission rates within 90 days. In total, 799 surgical cases (Mazor X: 48.81%; Mazor X Stealth Edition: 51.19%) were evaluated, involving robot-assisted placement of 4838 pedicle screws. The overall intraoperative complication rate was 3.13%. No intraoperative implant-related complications were encountered. Postoperatively, 129 patients suffered a total of 146 complications by 90 days, representing an incidence of 16.1%. The rate of an unrecognized malpositioned screw resulting in a new postoperative radiculopathy requiring revision surgery was 0.63% (5 cases). Medical and pain-related complications unrelated to hardware placement accounted for the bulk of postoperative complications within 90 days. The overall surgical revision rate at 90 days was 6.63% with 7 implant-related revisions, representing an implant-related revision rate of 0.88%. The 90-day readmission rate was 7.13% with 2 implant-related readmissions, representing an implant-related readmission rate of 0.25% of cases. The results of this multicenter case series and literature review suggest current-generation robotic guidance systems are associated with low rates of intraoperative and postoperative implant-related complications, revisions, and readmissions at 90 days. Future outcomes-based studies are necessary to evaluate complication, revision, and readmission rates compared to conventional surgery.

An Automatic Path Planning Method of Pedicle Screw Placement Based on Preoperative CT Images

Due to good fixation and obvious clinical advantages in the treatment of spinal diseases, pedicle screw technology is widely employed in spinal surgery. However, most screw placement paths are manually selected, which is a complicated and time-consuming process. Therefore, various kinds of spine surgery robots have been invented to assist during surgeries. An automatic path planning method of pedicle screw placement is proposed in this article. First, based on preoperative CT scans, the spine of the patient can be segmented and each individual vertebra is classified by using a trained deep learning network model. Additionally, a local coordinate system in every single vertebra is established according to its anatomical characteristics. Second, after analyzing the images to recognize the feature points, the pedicle region and route of screw placement are identified, which renders completion of the surgical path planning automatic. The experimental results show that 93&#x0025; of the planning results can be directly applied in surgeries after surgeon evaluation. In addition to the improvement in accuracy, the whole algorithm does not rely on any human assistance. This fully automatic process greatly reduces the time required for surgical planning.

Determination of a neurologic safe zone for bicortical S1 pedicle screw placement

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLumbosacral fixation is commonly used for the management of lumbosacral instability. As the sacrum mainly consists of cancellous bone, bicortical fixation, in which the pedicle screw penetrates the anterior sacral cortex, can help increase the strength of fixation. However, this method carries a risk to the L5 nerves which lie anterior to the sacrum at this level. PURPOSEThe goal of this study is to determine a safe zone for the placement of S1 pedicle screws to decrease the likelihood of L5 nerve injury. STUDY DESIGNRetrospective imaging review. PATIENT SAMPLEThis study evaluated imaging data of patients who underwent lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at our institute between September 1, 2020 and September 1, 2021. OUTCOME MEASUREST1-weighted axial MRIs were measured at the level of S1 pedicle screw placement. The space medial and lateral to the L5 nerve root on the anterior sacrum were measured and defined as safe zones. Additionally, the nerve width and sacral lengths were measured at this level. METHODSThe distribution of the measurements were evaluated to determine a medial and lateral safe zone, as well as the average nerve width at the level of S1 pedicle screw placement. Correlation analysis was performed to determine a relationship between safe zone sizes and sacral size. RESULTSA total of 400 MRIs were analyzed. The average medial safe zone measured was 32.8 mm (95% CI: 32.2–33.4) with no nerves lying within 22.3 mm of the midline sacrum. The average lateral safe zone measured was 17.7 mm (95% CI: 17.1–18.2), with no nerves within 5.3 mm of the lateral border of the sacrum. The average nerve root width was 6.2 mm (95% CI: 6.13–6.34). An increased sacral length was associated with a larger medial (p<.001) and lateral (p<.001) safe zone. CONCLUSIONSOur study revealed lateral and medial safe zones for the placement of S1 pedicle screws to avoid iatrogenic nerve injury in a retrospective cohort of 400 patients. There were no L5 nerve roots found within 22.3 mm of the sacrum's mid-axis or within 5.3 mm of the sacrum's anterolateral border. These defined safe zones can be used during pedicle screw planning and placement to decrease the risk of injury to the L5 nerve root.

What's New in Spine Surgery.

What's New in Spine Surgery.

Traumatic Bilateral Pars Fracture with Grade-I Spondylolisthesis Treated by Transforaminal (Trans Kambian) Endo Fusion under Epidural Analgesia: A Special Case Report

Traumatic spine injuries are common in young and adult population with worlds incidence estimated annual rate in 10.4–130.6 cases per million [1]. We are presenting a case of traumatic bilateral pars fracture with Grade-I spondylolisthesis treated by Endoscopic Transforaminal (Trans Kambian) spine fusion, under epidural analgesia and neuromonitoring. To the best of our knowledge this is a unique scenario reported for the first time in literature. Lumbar fusion although considered as the gold standard for the degenerative spine disease and Spondylolisthesis, Endoscopic Transforaminal (Trans Kambian) lumbar fusion popularly known as Endofusion/Endo-TLIF (Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) is a recent and effective minimally invasive option for certain cases. A 30-year male presented with severe low back pain and decreased sensations over dorsum of right foot after a fall of heavy metal pipe on his lower back. (VAS score 9/10). After thorough preop evaluation patient underwent Endoscopic Transforaminal (Trans Kambian) lumbar discectomy and fusion under epidural analgesia, with visualized endplate preparation. Specially designed Titanium Endo-bullet cage was inserted after percutaneous pedicle screw placement under neuromonitoring. Complete reduction of listhesis was achieved with near total relief in pain. Endoscopic TLIF ensures minimal tissue retraction and minimal alteration of the normal anatomy aiding in faster recovery and minimal blood loss. Patient was mobilized and discharged within 24 hours of surgery. We suggest Endo fusion is a safe and effective day care procedure for cases with traumatic bilateral pars fractures.

Placement of LC-II and trans-sacral screws using a robotic arm in a simulated bone model in the supine position \u2013 a feasibility study

PurposeThe use of a robotic arm has been well-described in the literature for the placement of pedicle screws in spine surgery as well as implants for sacroiliac joint fusion. There are no reports describing the use of a robotic arm to place screws in osseous fixation pathways (OFPs) employed in the treatment of pelvic ring and acetabular fractures outside of a single center in China. Using a Sawbones model, the authors describe a technique for using a robotic arm widely available in Europe and the Americas for placement of 6.5 mm cannulated screws into two OFPs commonly used in the treatment of pelvic and acetabular fractures.MethodsUsing the Mazor X Stealth Edition (MSXE) robot from Medtronic, the authors were able to place a pin into the pelvis onto which the robot was docked. The authors were then able to designate the area of interest using navigated instruments, and in combination with the MSXE “scan and plan” marker, obtain cross-sectional imaging using the O-Arm and successfully register the MSXE robot. We then used the provided software to plan trajectories for the lateral compression type 2 (LC-II) screw pathway as well as a pathway for a trans-ilio-trans-sacral screw. We describe in detail the steps for setup, planning and placement of 6.5 mm cannulated screws using the MSXE robotic arm into these two OFPs.ResultsVisual inspection and plain x-rays demonstrated successful placement of the screws into the two planned OFPs. No breach of cortical bone was seen on either visual inspection of the model or demonstrated on post-procedure x-rays.ConclusionIt is possible to use the Mazor X Stealth Edition robot to place screws into the LC-II and trans-ilio-transsacral screw pathways in a Sawbones model. This is only a feasibility study, and should in no way be taken to suggest that clinical application of this technique should be attempted.

Robotic Spine Surgery: Past, Present, and Future.

Systematic review. The aim of this review is to present an overview of robotic spine surgery (RSS) including its history, applications, limitations, and future directions. The first RSS platform received United States Food and Drug Administration approval in 2004. Since then, robotic-assisted placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws has been extensively studied. More recently, expanded applications of RSS have been introduced and evaluated. A systematic search of the Cochrane, OVID-MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed for articles relevant to robotic spine surgery. Institutional review board approval was not needed. The placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws using RSS is safe and accurate and results in reduced radiation exposure for the surgeon and surgical team. Barriers to utilization exist including learning curve and large capital costs. Additional applications involving minimally invasive techniques, cervical pedicle screws, and deformity correction have emerged. Interest in RSS continues to grow as the applications advance in parallel with image guidance systems and minimally invasive techniques. N/A.

Great Expectations with Augmented Reality in Spine Surgery: Hope or Hype?A commentary on the article ‘Operator independent reliability of direct augmented reality navigated pedicle screw placement and rod bending’ by Farshad et al.

In NASSJ, Farshad et al. have reported the results of their cadaveric study wherein they investigated the accuracy and the operator-independent reliability of ‘direct’ augmented reality navigated pedicle screw placement and rod bending [1] Over the past few decades, pedicle screws have become the undisputed choice for spinal instrumentation. The consequences of inaccurate pedicle screw placement can be disastrous – ranging from decreased pull-out strength owing to compromised purchase in the bone to iatrogenic injury to critical neurovascular structures.

Mechanical Study of Various Pedicle Screw Systems including Percutaneous Pedicle Screw in Trauma Treatment.

Background and Objectives: Spine surgery using a percutaneous pedicle screw placement (PPSP) is widely implemented for spinal trauma. However, percutaneous systems have been reported to have weak screw–rod connections. In this study, conventional open and percutaneous systems were biomechanically evaluated and compared. Material and Methods: The experiments were performed in two stages: the first stage was a break test, whereas the second stage was a fatigue test. Four systems were used for the experiments. System 1 was intended for conventional open surgery (titanium rod with a 6.0 mm diameter, using a clamp connecting mechanism). System 2 was a percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) system for trauma (titanium alloy rod with a 6.0 mm diameter, using ball ring connections). System 3 was a PPS system for trauma (cobalt–chromium alloy rod with a 6.0 mm diameter, using sagittal adjusting screw connections). System 4 was a general-purpose PPS system (titanium alloy rod with a 5.5 mm diameter, using a mechanism where the adapter in the head holds down the screw). Results: Stiffness values of 54.8 N/mm, 43.1 N/mm, 90.9 N/mm, and 39.3 N/mm were reported for systems 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The average number of load cycles in the fatigue test was 134,393, 40,980, 1,550,389, and 147,724 for systems 1 to 4, respectively. At the end of the test, the displacements were 0.2 mm, 16.9 mm, 1.2 mm, and 8.6 mm, respectively. System 1, with a locking mechanism, showed the least displacement at the end of the test. Conclusion: A few PPS systems showed better results in terms on stiffness and life than the open system. The experiments showed that mechanical strength varies depending on the spinal implant. The experiments conducted are essential and significant to provide the mechanical strength required for surgical reconstruction.

Percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion using optical topographic navigation: Operative technique

Despite the availability of navigation systems in spine surgery for over two decades, uptake into routine clinical practice has been limited in large part due to disruption of workflow with associated increased operative time. Optical topographical navigation for spine surgery permits safe and accurate placement of pedicle screws without any exposure to intraoperative ionizing radiation and may in fact improve workflow owing to a rapid registration time. Here we describe a novel application of 7D navigation system in a minimally invasive approach for posterior lumbar inter-body fusion (PLIF) with percutaneous screw placement.To our knowledge, this is the first publishable paper discussing the application of optical topographic navigation in minimally invasive PLIF. In our experience this technique was efficient, reliable and requires systematic study to evaluate long-term outcomes and potential benefits and pitfalls.