Accuracy and deviation analysis of robot-assisted spinal implants: A retrospective overview of 105 cases and preliminary comparison to open freehand surgery in lumbar spondylolisthesis

Efficacy and safety of navigation robot-assisted versus conventional oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion with internal fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A retrospective study

Effective internal fixation with pedicle screw is a key factor in the success of lumbar fusion with internal fixation. Whether navigation robots can improve the efficacy and safety of screw placement is controversial. Thirty-eight patients who underwent oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion internal fixation from March 2022 to May 2023 were retrospectively analyzed, 16 cases in the navigational robot group and 22 cases in the fluoroscopy group. Using visual analog score (VAS) for the low back and lower limbs, Oswestry Disability Index to compare the clinical efficacy of the 2 groups; using perioperative indexes such as the duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, and postoperative hospital stay to compare the safety of the 2 groups; and using accuracy of pedicle screws (APS) and the facet joint violation (FJV) to compare the accuracy of the 2 groups. Postoperative follow-up at least 6 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the baseline data (P > .05). The navigational robot group's VAS-back was significantly lower than the fluoroscopy group at 3 days postoperatively (P < .05). However, the differences between the 2 groups in VAS-back at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, and in VAS-leg and Oswestry Disability Index at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively were not significant (P > .05). Although duration of surgery in the navigational robot group was significantly longer than in the fluoroscopy group (P > .05), the intraoperative blood loss and the intraoperative fluoroscopy times were significantly lower than in the fluoroscopy group (P < .05). The difference in the PHS between the 2 groups was not significant (P > .05). The APS in the navigation robot group was significantly higher than in the fluoroscopy group, and the rate of FJV was significantly lower than in the fluoroscopy group (P < .05). Compared with the traditional fluoroscopic technique, navigation robot-assisted lumbar interbody fusion with internal fixation provides less postoperative low back pain in the short term, with less trauma, less bleeding, and lower radiation exposure, as well as better APS and lower FJV, resulting in better clinical efficacy and safety.

Robotic Spine Surgery: Systematic Review of Common Error Types and Best Practices

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic systems have emerged as a significant advancement in the field of spine surgery. They offer improved accuracy in pedicle screw placement and reduce intraoperative complications, hospital length of stay, blood loss, and radiation exposure. As the use of robotics in spine surgery continues to grow, it becomes imperative to understand common errors and challenges associated with this new and promising technology. Although the reported accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is very high, the current literature does not capture near misses or incidental procedural errors that might have been managed during surgery or did not alter treatment of patients. We evaluated errors that occur during robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion and identify best practices to minimize their occurrence.

METHODS

In this systematic review, we characterized 3 types of errors encountered during robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion-registration errors, skiving, and interference errors-that have been reported in the literature.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 13 relevant studies reporting robot-assisted screw errors. Nine studies reported registration errors, with 60% of failed screws in those studies caused by registration issues. Seven studies highlighted skiving errors; 26.8% of the failed screws in those studies were caused by skiving. Finally, interference errors were reported in 4 studies, making up 19.5% of failed screws.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of these findings, we suggest best practices-including close attention to preoperative planning, patient positioning, image registration, and equipment selection-to minimize the occurrence of these errors. Awareness of how errors occur may increase the safety of this technology.

Case Report: Lumbar spondylolisthesis with unilateral pedicle cleft and contralateral spondylolysis: a report of two cases and literature review

Background

The causes of pedicle cleft include congenital dysplasia and stress fractures, both of which are rare conditions. Secondary lumbar spondylolisthesis with combined unilateral pedicle cleft and contralateral spondylolysis is extremely rare and can be easily misdiagnosed. We report two cases with these conditions from different causes and discuss the diagnostic and therapeutic features in the context of the literature review.

Case description

Case 1 was a 58-year-old female with a stress fracture change at the left L5 pedicle. Case 2 was a 47-year-old female with a pedicle cleft due to hypoplasia of the left L5 pedicle. Both patients had a combined contralateral spondylolysis and Meyerding grade one lumbar spondylolisthesis, while neither had a clear history of lumbar trauma. After initial conservative treatments failed, both patients underwent a single-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Both patients were followed up for more than 1 year postoperatively with clinical symptom relief and bony fusion at the pedicle cleft suggested by a CT scan.

Conclusion

Lumbar spondylolisthesis with unilateral pedicle cleft and contralateral spondylolysis is rarely reported and can be clinically misdiagnosed as simple spondylolisthesis with bilateral spondylolysis. There is no widely accepted surgical option for patients for whom conservative treatment has failed. Our experience suggests that good clinical results may be achieved by single-segment posterior interbody fusion and bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Precise screw placement into the deficient pedicle and sufficient exiting nerve decompression are prerequisites for the success of this surgical option.

A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study Comparing 3 Different Spine Pedicle Screw Fixation Methods: Freehand, Fluoroscopy-Guided, and Robot-Assisted Techniques

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery.

METHODS

This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate.

RESULTS

Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients' age.

CONCLUSION

This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.

The Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Technique Assisted by the Mazor Renaissance Robotic System as a Salvage Strategy for Failed Lumbar Spine Surgery: Technical Note and Case Series

Purpose

The objective of this study was to describe the Mazor Renaissance robotic system-assisted CBT (cortical bone trajectory) screw technique as a salvage strategy for failed lumbar spine surgery.

Patients and Methods

Between January 2018 and June 2022, 7 patients underwent salvage surgery with the CBT screw fixation technique assisted by the Mazor Renaissance robot system in our institution. Intraoperative observations were recorded for blood loss, duration of operation, and fluoroscopy time. Complications related to CBT screws were also recorded. The accuracy of CBT screws was recorded in accordance with the modified Gertzbein-Robbins classification. The JOA (Japanese Orthopedic Association) score for low back pain was used to evaluate surgical outcomes.

Results

A total of 26 CBT screws were placed in 7 patients, including 4 females and 3 males. Three patients underwent ASD (adjacent segment disease) and four patients underwent lumbar union failure with loose or compromised PSs (pedicle screws). The mean operation time was 129.29 ± 32.97 minutes, the mean blood loss was 180 ± 52.60 mL, and the mean intraoperative fluoroscopy time was 14.29 ± 3.15 s. All screws were clinically acceptable according to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification. There were no complications related to CBT screws in any of the cases. The JOA scores for low back pain of all patients were significantly improved at the final follow-up.

Conclusion

The CBT screw fixation technique supplemented the traditional PS fixation technique, which can be performed as a salvage strategy for failed lumbar spine surgery and achieved good clinical results. The spinal robot was very helpful in evaluating pedicle size and determining CBT screw direction, especially in a previously instrumented lumbar pedicle.

Effects of tracer position on screw placement technique in robot-assisted posterior spine surgery: a case-control study

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted spine surgery is increasingly used in clinical work, and the installation of tracers as a key step in robotic surgery has rarely been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the potential effects of tracers on surgical outcomes in robot-assisted posterior spine surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients who underwent robotic-assisted posterior spine surgery at Beijing Shijitan Hospital over a 2-year period from September 2020 to September 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on the location of the tracer (iliac spine or vertebral spinous process) during robotic surgery and a case-control study was conducted to determine the potential impact of tracer location on the surgical procedure. Data analysis was performed using SPSS.25 statistical software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).

RESULTS

A total of 525 pedicle screws placed in 92 robot-assisted surgeries were analyzed. The rate of perfect screw positioning was 94.9% in all patients who underwent robot-assisted spine surgery (498/525). After grouping studies based on the location of tracers, we found there was no significant difference in age, sex, height and body weight between the two groups. The screw accuracy (p < 0.01)was significantly higher in the spinous process group compared to the iliac group (97.5% versus 92.6%), but the operation time (p = 0.09) was longer in comparison.

CONCLUSION

Placing the tracer on the spinous process as opposed to the iliac spine may result in longer procedure duration or increased bleeding, but enhanced satisfaction of screw placement.

Accuracy and digital screw path design of TiRobot-assisted pedicle screw placement for lumbar spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE

To investigate lumbar spondylolisthesis screw placement assisted by TiRobot in terms of digital screw path design, accurate implementation, and accuracy evaluation method.

METHODS

In this study, we enrolled 40 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis between December 2020 and August 2021 who underwent spine surgery at the Affiliated Hospital of PuTian University. Pre-operative computed tomography position and screw path designation, intra-operative pedicle screw placement according to pre-operative planning, and post-operative evaluation of the accuracy of screw placement were performed. 3D coordinates of the entry and exit points before and after the operation were collected. The qualified points at different levels of accuracy were counted. The screw placement accuracy was based on the absolute difference using the Chi-squared test.

RESULTS

In total, 194 screws were successfully implanted with no screws penetrating the cortex. The absolute difference of entry points X, Y, and Z coordinates before and after the operation was 0.425 ± 0.294 mm, 0.417 ± 0.310 mm, and 0.466 ± 0.327 mm, respectively. The corresponding values in terms of exit points were 0.702 ± 0.470 mm, 0.963 ± 0.595mm, and 0.983 ± 0.566 mm, respectively. No obvious differences in coordinates before and after the operation were observed with an entry point degree of accuracy of ≥ 1.2 mm and exit point degree of accuracy of ≥ 2.1 mm. Therefore, the real surgery was consistent with the design.

CONCLUSIONS

TiRobot-assisted lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery achieved optimal path designation and precise surgery.

Robot-assisted and augmented reality-assisted spinal instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of screw accuracy and outcomes over the last decade

OBJECTIVE

The use of technology-enhanced methods in spine surgery has increased immensely over the past decade. Here, the authors present the largest systematic review and meta-analysis to date that specifically addresses patient-centered outcomes, including the risk of inaccurate screw placement and perioperative outcomes in spinal surgeries using robotic instrumentation and/or augmented reality surgical navigation (ARSN).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases spanning the last decade (January 2011-November 2021) was performed to present all clinical studies comparing robot-assisted instrumentation and ARSN with conventional instrumentation techniques in lumbar spine surgery. The authors compared these two technologies as they relate to screw accuracy, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative time, length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, radiation dose and time, and the rate of reoperation.

RESULTS

A total of 64 studies were analyzed that included 11,113 patients receiving 20,547 screws. Robot-assisted instrumentation was associated with less risk of inaccurate screw placement (p < 0.0001) regardless of control arm approach (freehand, fluoroscopy guided, or navigation guided), fewer reoperations (p < 0.0001), fewer perioperative complications (p < 0.0001), lower EBL (p = 0.0005), decreased LOS (p < 0.0001), and increased intraoperative time (p = 0.0003). ARSN was associated with decreased radiation exposure compared with robotic instrumentation (p = 0.0091) and fluoroscopy-guided (p < 0.0001) techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, the pooled data suggest that technology-enhanced thoracolumbar instrumentation is advantageous for both patients and surgeons. As the technology progresses and indications expand, it remains essential to continue investigations of both robotic instrumentation and ARSN to validate meaningful benefit over conventional instrumentation techniques in spine surgery.