What is the learning curve for robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement in spine surgery?

Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE Surgical robotics has demonstrated utility across the spectrum of surgery. Robotics in spine surgery, however, remains in its infancy. Here, the authors systematically review the evidence behind robotic applications in spinal instrumentation. METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies (through October 2016) that reported the use of robotics in spinal instrumentation were identified from a search of the PubMed database. Data regarding the accuracy of screw placement, surgeon learning curve, radiation exposure, and reasons for robotic failure were extracted. RESULTS Twenty-five studies describing 2 unique robots met inclusion criteria. Of these, 22 studies evaluated accuracy of spinal instrumentation. Although grading of pedicle screw accuracy was variable, the most commonly used method was the Gertzbein and Robbins system of classification. In the studies using the Gertzbein and Robbins system, accuracy (Grades A and B) ranged from 85% to 100%. Ten studies evaluated radiation exposure during the procedure. In studies that detailed fluoroscopy usage, overall fluoroscopy times ranged from 1.3 to 34 seconds per screw. Nine studies examined the learning curve for the surgeon, and 12 studies described causes of robotic failure, which included registration failure, soft-tissue hindrance, and lateral skiving of the drill guide. CONCLUSIONS Robotics in spine surgery is an emerging technology that holds promise for future applications. Surgical accuracy in instrumentation implanted using robotics appears to be high. However, the impact of robotics on radiation exposure is not clear and seems to be dependent on technique and robot type.

Percutaneous screw placement in the lumbar spine with a modified guidance technique based on 3D CT navigation system

Several guidance techniques have been employed to increase accuracy and reduce surgical time during percutaneous placement of pedicle screws (PS). The purpose of our study was to present a modified technique for percutaneous placement of lumbar PS that reduces surgical time. We reviewed 23 cases of percutaneous PS placement using our technique for minimally invasive lumbar surgeries and 24 control cases where lumbar PS placement was done via common technique using Jamshidi needles (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA). An integrated computer-guided navigation system was used in all cases. In the technique modification, a handheld drill with a navigated guide was used to create the path for inserting guidewires through the pedicles and into the vertebral bodies. After drill removal, placement of the guidewires through the pedicles took place. The PS were implanted over the guidewires, through the pedicles and into the vertebral bodies. Intraoperative computed tomography was performed after screw placement to ensure optimal positioning in all cases. There were no intraoperative complications with either technique. PS placement was correct in all cases. The average time for each PS placement was 6.9 minutes for the modified technique and 9.2 minutes for the common technique. There was no significant difference in blood loss. In conclusion, this modified technique is efficient and contributes to reduced operative time.

Biomechanical advantages of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar interbody fusion compared with freehand technique in a prospective randomized controlled trial-perspective for patient-specific finite element analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

There have been conflicting results on the surgical outcome of lumbar fusion surgery using two different techniques: robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation and conventional freehand technique. In addition, there have been no studies about the biomechanical issues between both techniques.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical properties in terms of stress at adjacent segments using robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion technique (robot-assisted, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion, Rom-PLIF) and freehand technique (conventional, freehand, open approach, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, Cop-PLIF) for instrumented lumbar fusion surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an additional post-hoc analysis for patient-specific finite element (FE) model.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The sample is composed of patients with degenerative lumbar disease.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Intradiscal pressure and facet contact force are the outcome measures.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to undergo an instrumented PLIF procedure using a Rom-PLIF (37 patients) or a Cop-PLIF (41), respectively. Five patients in each group were selected using a simple random sampling method after operation, and 10 preoperative and postoperative lumbar spines were modeled from preoperative high-resolution computed tomography of 10 patients using the same method for a validated lumbar spine model. Under four pure moments of 7.5 Nm, the changes in intradiscal pressure and facet joint contact force at the proximal adjacent segment following fusion surgery were analyzed and compared with preoperative states.

RESULTS

The representativeness of random samples was verified. Both groups showed significant increases in postoperative intradiscal pressure at the proximal adjacent segment under four moments, compared with the preoperative state. The Cop-PLIF models demonstrated significantly higher percent increments of intradiscal pressure at proximal adjacent segments under extension, lateral bending, and torsion moments than the Rom-PLIF models (p=.032, p=.008, and p=.016, respectively). Furthermore, the percent increment of facet contact force was significantly higher in the Cop-PLIF models under extension and torsion moments than in the Rom-PLIF models (p=.016 under both extension and torsion moments).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed the clinical application of subject-specific FE analysis in the spine. Even though there was biomechanical superiority of the robot-assisted insertions in terms of alleviation of stress increments at adjacent segments after fusion, cautious interpretation is needed because of the small sample size.

Revisions for screw malposition and clinical outcomes after robot-guided lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVE

The accuracy of robot-guided pedicle screw placement has been proven to be high, but little is known about the impact of such guidance on clinical outcomes such as the rate of revision surgeries for screw malposition. In addition, there are very few data about the impact of robot-guided fusion on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Thus, the clinical benefit for the patient is unclear. In this study, the authors analyzed revision rates for screw malposition and changes in PROs following minimally invasive robot-guided pedicle screw fixation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients who had undergone minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MI-PLIF) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was performed. Patients were followed up clinically at 6 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months after treatment and by mailed questionnaire in March 2016 as a final follow-up. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), screw revisions, and socio-demographic factors were analyzed. A literature review was performed, comparing the incidence of intraoperative screw revisions and revision surgery for screw malposition in robot-guided, navigated, and freehand fusion procedures.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients fit the study inclusion criteria and had a mean follow up of 32 ± 17 months. No screws had to be revised intraoperatively, and no revision surgery for screw malposition was needed. In the literature review, the authors found a higher rate of intraoperative screw revisions in the navigated pool than in the robot-guided pool (p < 0.001, OR 9.7). Additionally, a higher incidence of revision surgery for screw malposition was observed for freehand procedures than for the robot-guided procedures (p < 0.001, OR 8.1). The VAS score for back pain improved significantly from 66.9 ± 25.0 preoperatively to 30.1 ± 26.8 at the final follow-up, as did the VAS score for leg pain (from 70.6 ± 22.8 to 24.3 ± 28.3) and ODI (from 43.4 ± 18.3 to 16.2 ± 16.7; all p < 0.001). Undergoing PLIF, a high body mass index, smoking status, and a preoperative ability to work were identified as predictors of a reduction in back pain. Length of hospital stay was 2.4 ± 1.1 days and operating time was 161 ± 50 minutes. Ability to work increased from 38.9% to 78.2% of patients (p < 0.001) at the final follow-up, and 89.1% of patients indicated they would choose to undergo the same treatment again.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with low-grade spondylolisthesis, the data demonstrated a benefit in using robotic guidance to reduce the rate of revision surgery for screw malposition as compared with other techniques of pedicle screw insertion described in peer-reviewed publications. Larger comparative studies are required to assess differences in PROs following a minimally invasive approach in spinal fusion surgeries compared with other techniques.

Robotic versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for metastatic spinal disease: a matched-cohort comparison

OBJECTIVE

Robot-guided pedicle screw placement is an established technique for the placement of pedicle screws. However, most studies have focused on degenerative disease. In this paper, the authors focus on metastatic spinal disease, which is associated with osteolysis. The associated lack of dense bone may potentially affect the automatic recognition accuracy of radiography-based surgical assistance systems. The aim of the present study is to compare the accuracy of the SpineAssist robot system with conventional fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement for thoracolumbar metastatic spinal disease.

METHODS

Seventy patients with metastatic spinal disease who required instrumentation were included in this retrospective matched-cohort study. All 70 patients underwent surgery performed by the same team of experienced surgeons. The decision to use robot-assisted or fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement was based the availability of the robot system. In patients who underwent surgery with robot guidance, pedicle screws were inserted after preoperative planning and intraoperative fluoroscopic matching. In the “conventional” group, anatomical landmarks and anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopy guided placement of the pedicle screws. The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of screw placement on the Gertzbein-Robbins scale. Grades A and B (< 2-mm pedicle breach) were considered clinically acceptable, and all other grades indicated misplacement. Secondary outcome measures included an intergroup comparison of direction of screw misplacement, surgical site infection, and radiation exposure.

RESULTS

A total of 406 screws were placed at 206 levels. Sixty-one (29.6%) surgically treated levels were in the upper thoracic spine (T1–6), 74 (35.9%) were in the lower thoracic spine, and the remaining 71 (34.4%) were in the lumbosacral region. In the robot-assisted group (Group I; n = 35, 192 screws), trajectories were Grade A or B in 162 (84.4%) of screws. The misplacement rate was 15.6% (30 of 192 screws). In the conventional group (Group II; n = 35, 214 screws), 83.6% (179 of 214) of screw trajectories were acceptable, with a misplacement rate of 16.4% (35 of 214). There was no difference in screw accuracy between the groups (chi-square, 2-tailed Fisher’s exact, p = 0.89). One screw misplacement in the fluoroscopy group required a second surgery (0.5%), but no revisions were required in the robot group. There was no difference in surgical site infections between the 2 groups (Group I, 5 patients [14.3%]; Group II, 8 patients [22.9%]) or in the duration of surgery between the 2 groups (Group I, 226.1 ± 78.8 minutes; Group II, 264.1 ± 124.3 minutes; p = 0.13). There was also no difference in radiation time between the groups (Group I, 138.2 ± 73.0 seconds; Group II, 126.5 ± 95.6 seconds; p = 0.61), but the radiation intensity was higher in the robot group (Group I, 2.8 ± 0.2 mAs; Group II, 2.0 ± 0.6 mAs; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Pedicle screw placement for metastatic disease in the thoracolumbar spine can be performed effectively and safely using robot-guided assistance. Based on this retrospective analysis, accuracy, radiation time, and postoperative infection rates are comparable to those of the conventional technique.

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

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact of robotic guidance in a minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) to a fluoroscopy-guided open approach in lumbar fusions.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

MIS requires a protracted learning curve and excessively exposes the patient and surgical team to harmful radiation. Robotic-guidance has been shown to improve accuracy and radiation in most studies, but there is conflicting prospective data.

METHODS

Patients indicated to undergo a 1 or 2 level spinal fusion were randomized between robotic-guided MIS (RO) and fluoroscopic-guided open surgery (FA). Patient demographics and outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were recruited to each arm. Average age was 66.7 years, 71.5% were females, and average body mass index was 25.2. Thirty-five levels were instrumented with 130 pedicle screws in RO versus 40 levels with 140 screws in FA, or 4.3 and 4.7 screws per surgery, respectively. Use of fluoroscopy was 3.5 versus 13.3 seconds in the RO and FA respectively (P < 0.001). C-arm output in mSv was 0.13 versus 0.27 in the RO and FA respectively (P = 0.015). By thermoluminescent dosimeters, the average per-screw radiation in the RO arm was 37.5% of that in the FA arm, demonstrating a mean reduction of 62.5% in use of radiation. There was no difference in the improvement in Visual Analog Scale scores for back and leg or the Oswestry Disability Index. All screws were accurate in RO whereas two screws breached (>2 mm and >4 mm) in FA (P = 0.500). One proximal facet violation occurred in the study, it was in FA (P = 1.000). The average distance from the proximal facets was 5.8 versus 4.6 mm in the RO and FA respectively (P < 0.001). The average length of stay was 6.8 versus 9.4 days in RO compared with FA (P = 0.020).

CONCLUSION

MIS using robotic-guidance significantly reduced radiation exposure and length of stay. Patient outcomes were not affected by the surgical technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and safety of an instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using a robot-assisted minimally invasive (Robot-PLIF) or a conventional open approach (Freehand-PLIF).

METHODS

Patients undergoing an instrumented PLIF were randomly assigned to be treated using a Robot-PLIF (37 patients) and a Freehand-PLIF (41 patients).

RESULTS

For intrapedicular accuracy, there was no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.534). For proximal facet joint accuracy, none of the 74 screws in the Robot-PLIF group violated the proximal facet joint, while 13 of 82 in the Freehand-PLIF group violated the proximal facet joint (P < 0.001). The average distance of the screws from the facets was 5.2 ± 2.1 mm and 2.7 ± 1.6 mm in the Robot-PLIF and Freehand-PLIF groups, respectively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement was associated with fewer proximal facet joint violations and better convergence orientations.

Robotic-guided sacro-pelvic fixation using S2 alar-iliac screws: feasibility and accuracy

PURPOSE

To review our experience with robotic guided S2-alar iliac (S2AI) screw placement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent S2AI fixation with robotic guidance. Screw placement and deviation from the preoperative plan were assessed by fusing preoperative CT (with the planned S2AI screws) to postoperative CT. The software's measurement tool was used to compare the planned vs. actual screw placements in axial and lateral views, at entry point to the S2 pedicle and at a 30 mm depth at the screws' mid-shaft, in a resolution of 0.1 mm. Medical charts were reviewed for technical issues and intra-operative complications.

RESULTS

35 S2AI screws were reviewed in 18 patients. The patients' mean age was 60 years. No intra-operative complications that related to the placement of S2AI screws were reported and robotic guidance was successful in all 35 screws. Post-operative CT scans showed that all trajectories were accurate. No violations of the iliac cortex or breaches of the anterior sacrum were noted. At the entry point, the screw deviated from the pre-operative plan by 3.0 ± 2.2 mm in the axial plane and 1.8 ± 1.6 mm in the lateral plane. At 30 mm depth, the screw deviated from the pre-operative plan by 2.1 ± 1.3 mm in the axial plane and 1.2 ± 1.1 mm in the lateral plane.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic guided S2AI screw placement is feasible and accurate. No screw malpositions or complications that related to the placement of S2AI screws occurred in this series. Larger studies are needed to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of robotic guided sacral-pelvic fixation.

Quantitative analysis of a spinal surgeon’s learning curve for scoliosis surgery

Aims

The aim of this study was a quantitative analysis of a surgeon’s learning curve for scoliosis surgery and the relationship between the surgeon’s experience and post-operative outcomes, which has not been previously well described.

Patients and Methods

We have investigated the operating time as a function of the number of patients to determine a specific pattern; we analysed factors affecting the operating time and compared intra- and post-operative outcomes. We analysed 47 consecutive patients undergoing scoliosis surgery performed by a single, non-trained scoliosis surgeon. Operating time was recorded for each of the four parts of the procedures: dissection, placement of pedicle screws, reduction of the deformity and wound closure.

Results

The median operating time was 310 minutes (interquartile range 277.5 to 432.5). The pattern showed a continuous decreasing trend in operating time until the patient number reached 23 to 25, after which it stabilised with fewer patient-dependent changes. The operating time was more affected by the patient number (r =- 0.75) than the number of levels fused (r = 0.59). Blood loss (p = 0.016) and length of stay in hospital (p = 0.012) were significantly less after the operating time stabilised. Post-operative functional outcome scores and the rate of complications showed no significant differences. Take home message: We describe a detailed learning curve for scoliosis surgery based on a single surgeon’s practise, providing useful information for novice scoliosis surgeons and for those responsible for training in spinal surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:679–85.

Unskilled unawareness and the learning curve in robotic spine surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic assistance for the placement of pedicle screws has been established as a safe technique. Nonetheless rare instances of screw misplacement have been reported.The aim of the present retrospective study is to assess whether experience and time affect the accuracy of screws placed with the help of the SpineAssist™ robot system.

METHODS

Postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans of 258 patients requiring thoracolumbar pedicle screw instrumentation from 2008 to 2013 were reviewed. Overall, 13 surgeons performed the surgeries. A pedicle breach of >3 mm was graded as a misplacement. Surgeons were dichotomised into an early and experienced period in increments of five surgeries.

RESULTS

In 258 surgeries, 1,265 pedicle screws were placed with the aid of the robot system. Overall, 1,217 screws (96.2 %) were graded as acceptable. When displayed by surgeon, the development of percent misplacement rates peaked between 5 and 25 surgeries in 12 of 13 surgeons. The overall misplacement rate in the first five surgeries was 2.4 % (6/245). The misplacement rate rose to 6.3 % between 11 and 15 surgeries (10/158; p = 0.20), and reached a significant peak between 16 and 20 surgeries with a rate of 7.1 % (8/112; p = 0.03). Afterwards, misplacement rates declined.

CONCLUSIONS

A major peak in screw inaccuracies occurred between cases 10 and 20, and a second, smaller one at about 40 surgeries. One potential explanation could be a transition from decreased supervision (unskilled but aware) to increased confidence of a surgeon (unskilled but unaware) who adopts this new technique prior to mastering it (skilled). We therefore advocate ensuring competent supervision for new surgeons at least during the first 25 procedures of robotic spine surgery to optimise the accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screws.