Robot-assisted Pedicle Screw Placement Research Articles

Clinical application of spinal robot in cervical spine surgery: safety and accuracy of posterior pedicle screw placement in comparison with conventional freehand methods

The novel robot-assisted (RA) technique has been utilized increasingly to improve the accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement. Although the clinical application of the RA technique has been investigated in several case series and comparative studies, the superiority and safety of RA over conventional freehand (FH) methods remain controversial. Meanwhile, the intra-pedicular accuracy of the two methods has not been compared for patients with cervical traumatic conditions. This study aimed to compare the rate and risk factors of intra-pedicular accuracy of RA versus the conventional FH approach for posterior pedicle screw placement in cervical traumatic diseases. A total of 52 patients with cervical traumatic diseases who received cervical screw placement using RA (26 patients) and FH (26 patients) techniques were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was the intra-pedicular accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement according to the Gertzbin-Robbins scale. Secondary outcome parameters included surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospital stay, and complications. Moreover, the risk factors that possibly affected intra-pedicular accuracy were assessed using univariate analyses. Out of 52 screws inserted using the RA method, 43 screws (82.7%) were classified as grade A, with the remaining 7 (13.5%) and 2 (3.8%) screws classified as grades B and C. In the FH cohort, 60.8% of the 79 screws were graded A, with the remaining screws graded B (21, 26.6%), C (8, 10.1%), and D (2, 2.5%). The RA technique showed a significantly higher rate of optimal intra-pedicular accuracy than the FH method (P = 0.008), but there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinically acceptable accuracy (P = 0.161). Besides, the RA technique showed remarkably longer surgery time, less postoperative drainage, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and equivalent intraoperative blood loss and complications than the FH technique. Furthermore, the univariate analyses showed that severe obliquity of the lateral atlantoaxial joint in the coronal plane (P = 0.003) and shorter width of the lateral mass at the inferior margin of the posterior arch (P = 0.014) were risk factors related to the inaccuracy of C1 screw placement. The diagnosis of HRVA (P < 0.001), severe obliquity of the lateral atlantoaxial joint in the coronal plane (P < 0.001), short pedicle width (P < 0.001), and short pedicle height (P < 0.001) were risk factors related to the inaccuracy of C2 screw placement. RA cervical pedicle screw placement was associated with a higher rate of optimal intra-pedicular accuracy to the FH technique for patients with cervical traumatic conditions. The severe obliquity of the lateral atlantoaxial joint in the coronal plane independently contributed to high rates of the inaccuracy of C1 and C2 screw placements. RA pedicle screw placement is safe and useful for cervical traumatic surgery.

Robot-Assisted Thoracolumbar Fixation After Acute Spinal Trauma: A Case Series.

Pedicle screw fixation has become the workhorse for the stabilization of the thoracolumbar spine. Since accurate pedicle screw placement is necessary for a successful surgery, three-dimensional navigation has become a mainstay for placing pedicle screws. However, the published studies have an overrepresentation of lumbar screws despite the prevalence of thoracic fractures. Furthermore, no robotic-assisted pedicle screw study has focused solely on traumatic fractures. The goal of this study was to address whether (1) robot-assisted pedicle screw placement had comparable accuracy in the thoracic and thoracolumbar region and (2) robot-assisted spine surgery was feasible in an acute, traumatic setting. We performed 14 consecutive, thoracolumbar spinal stabilization procedures in which 126 pedicle screws were placed using the Globus ExcelsiusGPS® spine robot in an acute, traumatic setting. Operative times were measured, and the accuracy of pedicle screws was assessed with the Gertzbein and Robbins classification system by two board-certified neuroradiologists. A total of 60-thoracic (T3-T11), the 24-thoracolumbar junction (T12-L1), 40-lumbar (L2-L5), and two-sacral pedicle screws were placed. Pedicle screw placement was accurate with a < 1% (1/126) pedicle breach rate. Thoracolumbar robotic spine surgery in an acute, traumatic setting was demonstrated to have a good safety profile with only one minor neurological deficit which was related to positioning. Furthermore, surgical times were inversely related to the case number. These results together suggest that robot-assisted spine surgery is accurate in the thoracic spine. Furthermore, placement of thoracolumbar screws in an acute trauma is non-inferior to other methods when based on accuracy.

Robot-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement Led to Lower Screw Loosening Rate than Fluoroscopy-Guided Technique in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for spine surgery has become popular in recent years. This study compares clinical, radiographic outcomes and the screw loosening rate between robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement in patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We retrospectively examined 108 patients with the degenerative lumbar disease who underwent TLIF. According to whether the robotic system was used, patients were assigned to either the robot-assisted (Ro TLIF, n = 29) or fluoroscopy-guided TLIF (FG TLIF, n = 79) group. Radiographic parameters and patient-reported outcomes, including leg and back pain visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were assessed. Loosening signs were noted in 48 out of 552 pedicle screws. The screw loosening rate was higher in the FG TLIF (10.2%) than Ro TLIF group (4.3%). A significant correlation was found between screw loosening and age, the number of level(s) fused, and the ratio of the average distance from the pedicle screw to the upper endplate to vertebral body height. VAS-leg, VAS-back, and ODI showed significant improvements in both groups postoperatively (all p < 0.05). These results indicated that robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in TLIF had a lower screw loosening rate and similar patient-reported outcomes compared with the fluoroscopy-guided technique.

Predictors of accurate intrapedicular screw placement in single-level lumbar (L4-5) fusion: robot-assisted pedicle screw, traditional pedicle screw, and cortical bone trajectory screw insertion

BackgroundThe superiorities in proximal facet joint protection of robot-assisted (RA) pedicle screw placement and screw implantation via the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) have rarely been compared. Moreover, findings on the screw accuracy of both techniques are inconsistent. Therefore, we analyzed the screw accuracy and incidence of facet joint violation (FJV) of RA and CBT screw insertion in the same study and compared them with those of conventional pedicle screw (PS) insertion. The possible factors affecting screw accuracy and FJV were also analyzed.MethodsA total of 166 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases requiring posterior L4-5 fusion were retrospectively included and divided into the RA, PS, and CBT groups from March 2019 to December 2021. The grades of intrapedicular accuracy and superior FJV were evaluated according to the Gertzbin–Robbins scale and the Babu scale based on postoperative CT. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to assess the possible risk factors associated with intrapedicular accuracy and superior FJV.ResultsThe rates of optimal screw insertion in the RA, PS, and CBT groups were 87.3%, 81.3%, and 76.5%, respectively. The difference between the RA and CBT groups was statistically significant (P = 0.004). Superior FJVs occurred in 28.2% of screws in RA, 45.0% in PS, and 21.6% in CBT. The RA and CBT groups had fewer superior FJVs than the PS group (P = 0.008 and P < 0.001, respectively), and no significant difference was observed between the RA and CBT groups (P = 0.267). Multivariable analysis revealed that the CBT technique was an independent risk factor for intrapedicular accuracy. Furthermore, older age, the conventional PS technique and a smaller facet angle were independently associated with the incidence of superior FJVs.ConclusionsThe RA and CBT techniques were associated with fewer proximal FJVs than the PS technique. The RA technique showed a higher rate of intrapedicular accuracy than the CBT technique. The CBT technique was independently associated with screw inaccuracy. Older age, conventional PS technique and coronal orientation of the facet join were independent risk factors for superior FJV.

Accuracy of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement comparing junior surgeons with expert surgeons: Can junior surgeons place pedicle screws as accurately as expert surgeons?

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to verify whether a spine robotic system was useful for junior surgeons. MethodsTwenty-seven patients underwent posterior spinal fusion with open surgery using a spine robotic system (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic Inc., Dublin, Ireland) from April to August 2021. Pedicle screw insertions were performed by five surgeons. The surgeon and insertion time were recorded for each pedicle screw. Two surgeons who are board-certified spine surgeons by the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research (JSSR) were defined as the expert surgeon group. Three surgeons who were training to acquire qualifications as JSSR board certified spine surgeons were defined as the junior surgeon group. In postoperative CT images, the deviation of 255 pedicle screws was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins (GR) grades. ResultsIn the expert surgeon group, the GR grades were Grade A for 79 screws (90.8%), Grade B for 6 (6.9%), Grade C for 2 (2.3%), and 0 (0%) for Grades D and E. I In the junior surgeon group, the GR grades were Grade A for 162 screws (96.4%), Grade B for 6 (3.6%), and 0 (0%) for Grades C, D, and E. There was no significant difference in the deviation rate between surgeon groups (p = 0.08). The mean insertion times were 174.5 ± 83.0 s in the expert surgeon group and 191.0 ± 111.0 s in the junior surgeon group. There was no significant difference in the insertion time between surgeon groups (p = 0.22). ConclusionsThere were no significant differences in the deviation rate and the insertion time of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement between expert surgeons and junior surgeons who were training to acquire qualifications as JSSR board certified spine surgeons. Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement can be effectively employed by junior surgeons.

Association of robot-assisted techniques with the accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement: A network pooling analysis

SummaryBackgroundTraditional paired meta-analyses have yielded inconsistent results for the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement due to the high heterogeneity within studies. This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement.MethodsThe Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with no language limitations from inception to Jan 4, 2022. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results. The main outcomes were accuracy of pedicle screw placement, proximal facet joint violation, and complications. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022301417).Findings26 trials including 2046 participants evaluating robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement were included in this study. Our pooled results showed that Renaissance (OR 2.86; [95% CI 1.79 to 4.57]) and TiRobot (OR 3.10; [95% CI 2.19 to 4.40]) yielded higher rates of perfect pedicle screw insertion (Grades A) than the conventional freehand technique. Renaissance (OR 2.82; [95% CI 1.51 to 5.25]) and TiRobot (OR 4.58; [95% CI 2.65 to 7.89]) yielded higher rates of clinically acceptable pedicle screw insertion (Grades A+B). However, ROSA, SpineAssist, and Orthobot were not associated with higher perfect pedicle screw insertion and clinically acceptable pedicle screw insertion rates. Robot-assisted techniques were associated with low rates of proximal facet joint violation (OR 0.18; [95% CI 0.10 to 0.32]; I2:9.55%) and overall complications (OR 0.38; [95% CI 0.23 to 0.63]; I2:27.05%). Moreover, robot-assisted techniques were associated with lower radiation doses (MD –14.38; [95% CI –25.62 to –3.13]; I2:100.00%).InterpretationOur findings suggest that only Renaissance and TiRobot systems are associated with high accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement. Robotic-assisted techniques hold great promise in spinal surgery due to their safety and effectiveness.FundingThis work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81871818), Tangdu Hospital Seed Talent Program (Fei-Long Wei) and Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (No.2019JM-265).

Bone-Mounted Robotic System in Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery for Osteoporosis Patients: Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.

PurposeSevere complications, including screw loosening events and low fusion rates, in spinal fusion surgery using the traditional open method are problematic. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the rate of screw loosening and the clinical outcomes of bone-mounted miniature robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in patients treated for degenerative spinal disease.Patients and MethodsData were collected from the medical records of 118 patients (mean age, 69 years). Differences in clinical outcomes, including the Oswestry disability index, visual analog scale score, screw loosening rate, cage fusion rate, and complications, were evaluated among different bone mineral densities.ResultsThe screw loosening and cage fusion rates for all patients, normal bone mineral density, osteopenia, and osteoporosis groups were 12%, 8.6%, 13.1%, and 14%, respectively, and 85.3%, 93%, 82.5%, and 81.4%, respectively. There was a higher screw loosening rate and a lower cage fusion rate in the osteopenia and osteoporosis groups than in the normal bone density group. The accuracy of the screw placement was 97.3%. There were no statistically significant differences in the Oswestry disability index and visual analog scale scores, and no major complications for dural tear or vascular or visceral injury.ConclusionOur study demonstrated an acceptable screw loosening rate in patients with osteoporosis compared to that in patients with normal bone mineral density. The robotic system resulted in accurate screw placement in patients with osteoporosis.

Accuracy and safety of robot assisted pedicle screw placement

To investigate the accuracy and safety of pedicle screw placement assisted by orthopedic robot and C-arm fluoroscopy. The clinical data of 36 patients with spinal diseases underwent surgical treatment from January 2019 to August 2020 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 18 cases were implanted pedicle screws assisted by orthopaedic robot(observation group), including 12 males and 6 females, aged from 16 to 61 years with an average of (38.44±3.60) years;there were 1 case of adolescent scoliosis, 1 case of spinal tuberculosis, 7 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis, 4 cases of thoracic fracture and 5 cases of lumbar fracture. Another 18 cases were implanted pedicle screws assisted by C-arm fluoroscopy(control group), including 10 males and 8 females, aged from 18 to 58 years with an average of (43.22±2.53) years;there were 1 case of adolescent scoliosis, 6 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis, 6 cases of thoracic fracture and 5 cases of lumbar fracture. The intraoperative fluoroscopy times, nail placement time and postoperative complications were recorded in two groups. CT scan was performed after operation. The Gertzbein-Robbins standard was used to evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement which was calculated. The number of intraoperative fluoroscopy in observation group was(6.89±0.20) times, which was significantly higher than that in control group(14.00±0.18)times(P<0.05). The placement time of each screw in observation group was(2.56±0.12) min, which was significantly different from that in control group(4.22±0.17) min (P<0.05). One case of incision infection occurred in control group after operation, and recovered after active dressing change. During the follow-up period, no serious complications such as screw loosening and fracture occurred in two groups, and there was no significant difference in complications between two groups(P>0.05). A total of 107 screws were placed in observation group, including 101 screws in class A, 4 in class B, 2 in class C, 0 in class D and 0 in class E, the accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement=[(number of screws in class A+B) / the number of all screws placed in the group] ×100%=98.1%(105/107); and a total of 104 screws were placed in control group, including 90 screws in class A, 4 in class B, 5 in class C, 5 in class D and 0 in class E, the accuracy rate of pedicle screw implantation=[(number of screws in class A+B/the number of all screws placed in the group]×100%=90.3% (94/104); there was significant difference between two groups (P<0.05). Orthopaedic robot assisted pedicle screw placement has the advantages of less fluoroscopy times, shorter screw placement time and higher accuracy, which can further improve the surgical safety and has a broad application prospect in the orthopaedic.

Risk Factors of Unsatisfactory Robot-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement: A Case-Control Study.

ObjectiveTo identify potential risk factors of unsatisfactory screw position during robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation. MethodsA retrospective analysis of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation performed in Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from March 2018 to March 2019 was conducted. Research data was collected from the medical record and imaging systems. Univariate tests were performed on the potential risk factors (patient’s characteristics and surgical factors) of unsatisfactory screw position during robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation. For statistically significant variables in univariate tests, a logistic regression test was used to identify independent risk factors for unsatisfactory screw position. ResultsA total of 780 pedicle screws placed in 163 robot-assisted surgeries were analyzed. The rate of perfect screw positions was 93.08%, and the unsatisfactory rate was 6.92%. In patients with severe obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) (odds ratio [OR], 2.459; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.199–5.044; p=0.014), osteoporosis (T ≤ -2.5) (OR, 1.857; 95% CI, 1.046–3.295; p=0.034), and the segments 3 levels away from the tracker (OR, 2.216; 95% CI, 1.119–4.387; p=0.022), robot-assisted pedicle screw placement has a higher risk of screw malposition. ConclusionDuring robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for patients with severe obesity, osteoporosis, and segments 3 levels away from the tracker, vigilance should be maintained during surgery to avoid postoperative complications due to unsatisfactory screw position.

Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement under Regional Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is usually performed under general anesthesia to keep the body still. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the robot-assisted technique under regional anesthesia with that of conventional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement under general anesthesia in minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery. Methods This study recruited patients who underwent robot-assisted percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) or fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) between December 2017 and February 2020 at a single center. Based on the method of percutaneous pedicle screw placement used, patients were divided into the robot-assisted under regional anesthesia (group RE-RO) and fluoroscopy-guided under general anesthesia (group GE-FLU) groups. The primary outcome measures were screw accuracy and the incidence of facet joint violation (FJV). Secondary outcome measures included X-ray and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores which were used to evaluate the degree of the postoperative pain at 4 hours and on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. Intraoperative adverse events were also recorded. Results Eighteen patients were included in group RE-RO, and 23 patients were included in group GE-FLU. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws (Gertzbein and Robbins grades A and B) were 94.4% and 91.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the percentages of clinically acceptable screws (p=0.44) or overall Gertzbein and Robbins screw accuracy grades (p=0.35). Only the top screws were included in the analysis of FJVs. The percentages of FJV (Babu grades 1, 2, and 3) were 5.6% and 28.3%, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.01). Overall, the FJV grades in group RE-RO were significantly better than those in group GE-FLU (p=0.009). The mean fluoroscopy time for each screw in group RE-RO was significantly shorter than that in group GE-FLU (group RE-RO: 5.4 ± 1.9 seconds and group GE-FLU: 6.8 ± 2.0 seconds; p=0.03). The postoperative pain between the RE-RO and GE-FLU groups was not statistically significant. The intraoperative adverse events included 1 case of registration failure and 1 case of guide-wire dislodgment in group RE-RO, as well as 2 cases of screw misplacement in group GE-FLU. No complications related to anesthesia were observed. Conclusion Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement under regional anesthesia can be performed effectively and safely. The accuracy is comparable to the conventional technique. Moreover, this technique has the advantage of fewer FJVs and a lower radiation time.

Initial Intraoperative Experience with Robotic-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement with Cirq® Robotic Alignment: An Evaluation of the First 70 Screws.

Background: Robot-guided spine surgery is based on a preoperatively planned trajectory that is reproduced in the operating room by the robotic device. This study presents our initial experience with thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement using Brainlab’s Cirq® surgeon-controlled robotic arm (BrainLab, Munich, Germany). Methods: All patients who underwent robotic-assisted implantation of pedicle screws in the thoracolumbar spine were included in the study. Our workflow, consisting of preoperative imagining, screw planning, intraoperative imaging with automatic registration, fusion of the preoperative and intraoperative imaging with a review of the preplanned screw trajectories, robotic-assisted insertion of K-wires, followed by a fluoroscopy-assisted insertion of pedicle screws and control iCT scan, is described. Results: A total of 12 patients (5 male and 7 females, mean age 67.4 years) underwent 13 surgeries using the Cirq® Robotic Alignment Module for thoracolumbar pedicle screw implantation. Spondylodiscitis, metastases, osteoporotic fracture, and spinal canal stenosis were detected. A total of 70 screws were implanted. The mean time per screw was 08:27 ± 06:54 min. The mean time per screw for the first 7 surgeries (first 36 screws) was 16:03 ± 09:32 min and for the latter 6 surgeries (34 screws) the mean time per screw was 04:35 ± 02:11 min (p < 0.05). Mean entry point deviation was 1.9 ± 1.23 mm, mean deviation from the tip of the screw was 2.61 ± 1.6 mm and mean angular deviation was 3.5° ± 2°. For screw-placement accuracy we used the CT-based Gertzbein and Robbins System (GRS). Of the total screws, 65 screws were GRS A screws (92.85%), one screw was a GRS B screw, and two further screws were grade C. Two screws were D screws (2.85%) and underwent intraoperative revision. There were no perioperative deficits. Conclusion: Brainlab’s Cirq® Robotic Alignment surgeon-controlled robotic arm is a safe and beneficial method for accurate thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement with high accuracy.

Robotic-Assisted Trajectory Into Kambin's Triangle During Percutaneous Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Initial Case Series Investigating Safety and Efficacy.

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has the potential to further advance with the use of robot-assisted (RA) techniques. While RA pedicle screw placement has been extensively investigated, there is a lack of literature on the use of the robot for other tasks, such as accessing Kambin's triangle in percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion (percLIF). To characterize the surgical feasibility and preliminary outcomes of an initial case series of 10 patients receiving percLIF with RA cage placement via Kambin's triangle. We performed a single-center, retrospective review of patients undergoing RA percLIF using robot-guided trajectory to access Kambin's triangle for cage placement. Patients undergoing RA percLIF were eligible for enrollment. Baseline health and demographic information in addition to peri- and postoperative data was collected. The dimensions of each patient's Kambin's triangle were measured. Ten patients and 11 levels with spondylolisthesis were retrospectively reviewed. All patients successfully underwent the planned procedure without perioperative complications. Four patients underwent their procedure with awake anesthesia. The average dimension of Kambin's triangle was 66.3 m2. With the exception of 1 patient who stayed in the hospital for 7 d, the average length of stay was 1.2 d, with 2 patients discharged the day of surgery. No patients suffered postoperative motor or sensory deficits. Spinopelvic parameters and anterior and posterior disc heights were improved with surgery. As MISS continues to evolve, further exploration of robot-guided surgical practice, such as our technique, will lead to creative solutions to challenging anatomical variation and overall improved patient care.

Robotics and Spine Surgery: Lessons From the Personal Computer and Industrial Revolutions.

Over the past decade, several review articles have evaluated the techniques and outcomes of robotics vs traditional methods in spine surgery. Recently, robot-assisted pedicle screw placement has emerged, representing an important milestone in the evolution of spine surgery. In the present article, the authors aim to provide the historical context regarding the use and growth of spinal robotics through the lens of the Industrial Revolution and the personal computer revolution. While the former provides insight into the current implications of robotics in spine surgery, the latter predicts future steps in this arena.

Evaluation of K-wireless robotic and navigation assisted pedicle screw placement in adult degenerative spinal surgery: learning curve and technical notes.

K-wireless robotic pedicle screw instrumentation with navigation is a new technology with large potential. Barriers to adoption are added registration time with robotic-navigated system and reliable screw positioning. Understanding the learning curve and limitations is crucial for successful implementation. The purpose of this study was to describe a learning curve of k-wireless robotic assisted pedicle screw placement with navigation and compare to conventional techniques. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data of 65 consecutive adult patients underwent robotic-navigated posterior spinal fusion by a single spine surgeon. Registration, screw placement, and positioning times were recorded. All patients underwent intra-operative 3D fluoroscopy and screw trajectory was compared to pre-operative CT. A total of 364 instrumented pedicles were planned robotically, 311 (85.4%) were placed robotically; 17 screws (4.7%) converted to k-wire, 21 (5.8%) converted to freehand, and 15 (4.1%) planned freehand. Of the 311 robotically placed pedicle screws, three dimensional fluoroscopic imaging showed 291 (93.5%) to be GRS Grade A in the axial plane (fully contained within the pedicle) and 281 (90.4%) were GRS Grade A in the sagittal plane. All breached screw deviations from plan were identified on 3D fluoroscopy during surgery and repositioned and confirmed by additional 3d fluoroscopy scan. Reasons for conversion included morphology of starting point (n=18), soft tissue pressure (n=9), hypoplastic pedicles (n=6), obstructive reference pin placement (n=2), and robotic arm issues (n=1). Seventeen (5.5%) critical breaches (≥2-4 mm) were recorded in 11 patients, 9 (2.9%) critical breaches were due to soft tissue pressure causing skive. Two patients experienced 6 (1.9%) critical breaches from hypoplastic pedicles, and 3 (0.9%) unplanned lateral breaches were found in another patient. One patient (0.3%) experienced skive due to morphology and spinal instability from isthmic spondylolisthesis. Imaging showed 143 screws placed medially to plan (1.2±0.9 mm), 170 lateral (1.2±1.1 mm), 193 screws caudal (1.0±0.6 mm) and 117 cranial (0.6±0.5 mm). No adverse clinical sequelae occurred from implantation of any screw. The learning curve showed improvement in screw times for the first several cases. Understanding the learning curve and situations where the robotic technique may be suboptimal can help guide the surgeon safe and effectively for adoption, as well as further refine these technologies.

Retrospective study assessing the learning curve and the accuracy of minimally invasive robot-assisted pedicle screw placement during the first 41 robot-assisted spinal fusion surgeries

Retrospective study assessing the learning curve and the accuracy of minimally invasive robot-assisted pedicle screw placement during the first 41 robot-assisted spinal fusion surgeries

A comparative study of robot-assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement in upper thoracic surgery

To compare the safety and accuracy of pedicle screw placement assisted by robot system with freehand pedicle screw placement in upper thoracic surgery. Between December 2017 and December 2019, 39 cases with upper thoracic pedicle screw internal fixation were included in the study, including 19 cases in robot group (group A, robot assisted pedicle screw placement) and 20 cases in freehand group (group B, freehand pedicle screw placement). There were 104 screws implanted in group A and 108 screws in group B. There was no significant difference in age, gender composition, body mass index, disease type, number of screws implanted, and segmental distribution between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative drainage were recorded and compared between the two groups. CT scan was performed in all patients at 2 days after operation to evaluate the screw accuracy based on the Gertzbein-Robbins grading standard. The operation time of group A was significantly longer than that in group B ( t=2.759, P=0.009). There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage between the two groups ( t=-0.796, P=0.431; t=-0.814, P=0.421). At 2 days after operation, according to Gertzbein-Robbins grading standard, the accuracy of pedicle screw implantation in group A were grade A in 94 screws, grade B in 9 screws, and grade C in 1 screw; and in group B were grade A in 72 screws, grade B in 26 screws, grade C in 9 screws, and grade D in 1 screw; the difference between the two groups was significant ( Z=4.257, P=0.000). The accuracy rate of group A was 99.04%, and that of group B was 90.74%, showing significant difference ( χ 2=7.415, P=0.006). Compared with traditional freehand pedicle screw placement, robot-assisted pedicle screw placement significantly improves the accuracy and safety of screw placement without increasing the bleeding and postoperative drainage.

Initial intraoperative experience with robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement with stealth navigation in pediatric spine deformity: an evaluation of the first 40 cases.

Pedicle screw fixation in pediatric spine surgery has become common practice given the fixation stability and improved curve correction. However, due to proximity to vital structures, accuracy is paramount. Literature has reported accuracy rates from 87.5 to 90% using traditional freehand techniques. This study presents our initial experience with pedicle screw placement using the newest generation of spinal robotics for treatment of pediatric spinal deformity. A cohort of patients, aged 8-21years, undergoing spinal fusion surgery using robotic-assisted technology was reviewed. Diagnoses, Cobb angles, surgical time, robot time, number of screws placed, and complications were recorded. Accuracy of screw placement was assessed based on analysis of successful screw execution, evaluation screw position using intraoperative fluoroscopy and post-operative radiographs, and clinical evaluation. The average age was 14.5years. Prevalent diagnoses included idiopathic (65%) and neuromuscular scoliosis (13%). Mean preoperative curve measured 66.8°. The median time for operation was 235 minutes with medians of 8 levels fused and 5 screws placed per patient. Of the 314 screws placed, we recorded a 98.7% accuracy rate. Lateral deviation was the most common cause of malpositioning. Post-operative plain films revealed no grossly misplaced screws. There were no perioperative neurologic deficits or malpositioned screws requiring reoperation. This is the first reported series of navigated spinal robotics used for pedicle screw placement in children. Our clinical success rate was 98.7% and there were no clinically relevant screw related complications. The study shows promising initial results of combined robotic-navigation techniques in pediatric patients.

Surgeons' Learning Curve of Renaissance Robotic Surgical System.

A few articles on robot-assisted pedicle screw placement described the learning curve but failed to report on the overall operative time, including cases in which the robotic system malfunctioned. The purpose of this study was to identify a single surgeon's learning curve including estimated blood loss, surgery time, anesthesia time, robot time, and complications. A retrospective study was performed between January 2016 and August 2018 for patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion using the Mazor robot. Based on the charts, the robot time, time of anesthesia, and surgery time were recorded, as were the complications, misplacement of screws, and blood loss. Of 62 robot-assisted surgeries scheduled, only 46 were performed (74.2%) upon patients with a mean age of 63.3 ± 13.0 years. The mean follow-up time was 13.2 ± 8.0 months and most commonly a fusion from L4 to S1 was performed (20/46, 43.5%). A high improvement in estimated intraoperative blood loss was observed of 755.7 ± 344.7 mL (slope = -9.89). A decrease in time in anesthesia, surgery, and robotic usage was identified with a slope factor of -3.64 (R 2 = .22, SE = 85.4, P < .005), -3.97 (R 2 = 0.30, SE 75.8, P < .005), -0.69 (R 2 = .07, SE = 27.8, P < .09), respectively. Furthermore, a decrease in pedicle screw insertion time and operative time was found (slope = -0.05, R 2 = .02, SE = 3.4, P = .37). In total, 5 major complications (cases 8, 19, 21, 35, 43) and 6 minor complications (cases 4, 14, 15, 20, 29), were identified (21.7%) without any learning curve. Robot pedicle screw insertion shows no major learning curve; however, the blood loss and the installation process of the system improved with experience. 3.

Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted placement of pedicle screws compared to conventional free-hand technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXTThe introduction and integration of robot technology into modern spine surgery provides surgeons with millimeter accuracy for pedicle screw placement. Coupled with computer-based navigation platforms, robot-assisted spine surgery utilizes augmented reality to potentially improve the safety profile of instrumentation. PURPOSEIn this study, the authors seek to determine the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement compared to conventional free-hand (FH) technique. STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGWe conducted a systematic review of the electronic databases using different MeSH terms from 1980 to 2020. OUTCOME MEASURESThe present study measures pedicle screw accuracy, complication rates, proximal-facet joint violation, intraoperative radiation time, radiation dosage, and length of surgery. RESULTSA total of 1,525 patients (7,379 pedicle screws) from 19 studies with 777 patients (51.0% with 3,684 pedicle screws) in the robotic-assisted group were included. Perfect pedicle screw accuracy, as categorized by Gerztbein-Robbin Grade A, was significantly superior with robotic-assisted surgery compared to FH-technique (Odds ratio [OR]: 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20–2.35; p=.003). Similarly, clinically acceptable pedicle screw accuracy (Grade A+B) was significantly higher with robotic-assisted surgery versus FH-technique (OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.01–2.37; p=.05). Furthermore, the complication rates and proximal-facet joint violation were 69% (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.20–0.48; p<.00001) and 92% less likely (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03–0.20; p<.00001) with robotic-assisted surgery versus FH-group. Robotic-assisted pedicle screw implantation significantly reduced intraoperative radiation time (MD: −5.30, 95% CI: −6.83–3.76; p<.00001) and radiation dosage (MD: −3.70, 95% CI: −4.80–2.60; p<.00001) compared to the conventional FH-group. However, the length of surgery was significantly higher with robotic-assisted surgery (MD: 22.70, 95% CI: 6.57–38.83; p=.006) compared to the FH-group. CONCLUSIONThis meta-analysis corroborates the accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement.

Robot-assisted orthopedic surgery in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: a preliminary clinical report

Study designA single-institution, retrospective cohort study.ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy and short-term clinical outcomes of pedicle screw placement between robot-assisted (RA) and freehand (FH) technique in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS).MethodsFrom February 2018 to October 2019, 97 adult patients with degenerative scoliosis admitted to our department were retrospectively reviewed. Thirty-one patients received robot-assisted pedicle screw placement (RA group), and 66 patients underwent freehand pedicle screw placement (FH group). Patient demographics and short-term clinical outcomes were recorded and compared between two groups. Gertzbein-Robbins grading system was adopted to evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement by means of postoperative CT scan. Short-term clinical outcomes consist of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), radiological parameters, Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) scores before the operation, 6 months after operation, adverse events, and revisions.ResultsThe accuracy of screw placement was higher than that of the FH group (clinically acceptable 98.7% vs. 92.2%; P< 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss of the RA group was less than those in the FH group (499 vs. 573 ml; P < 0.001). Operative time (283.1 vs. 291.9 min; P = 0.31) and length of stay (12.8 vs. 13.7 days; P = 0.36) were compared between RA and FH groups. In terms of radiological parameters, both of groups were improved postoperatively. The SRS-22 scores at 6 months after operation from both groups were better than those before operation. For surgery-related complication, one case had pressure sores in the RA group while two cases developed dural tears in the FH group. No revision was required in both groups.ConclusionCombined with other surgical correction modalities, robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation is an effective and safe method of treating degenerative scoliosis. Due to its satisfactory surgical outcomes such as higher accuracy and less trauma, it provides a good alternative for clinical practice.Level of evidence3.