Comparison of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: 2-year follow-up

Evaluating the Status and Promising Potential of Robotic Spinal Surgery Systems

The increasing frequency of cervical and lumbar spine disorders, driven by aging and evolving lifestyles, has led to a rise in spinal surgeries using pedicle screws. Robotic spinal surgery systems have emerged as a promising innovation, offering enhanced accuracy in screw placement and improved surgical outcomes. We focused on literature of this field from the past 5 years, and a comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Robotic spinal surgery systems have significantly impacted spinal procedures by improving pedicle screw placement accuracy and supporting various techniques. These systems facilitate personalized, minimally invasive, and low-radiation interventions, leading to greater precision, reduced patient risk, and decreased radiation exposure. Despite advantages, challenges such as high costs and a steep learning curve remain. Ongoing advancements are expected to further enhance these systems' role in spinal surgery.

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.

Advancing robot-guided techniques in lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spine surgery is a crucial intervention for addressing spinal injuries or conditions affecting the spine, often involving lumbar fusion through pedicle screw (PS) insertion. The precision of PS placement is pivotal in orthopedic surgery. This systematic review compares the accuracy of robot-guided (RG) surgery with free-hand fluoroscopy-guided (FFG), free-hand without fluoroscopy-guided (FHG), and computed tomography image-guided (CTG) techniques for PS insertion.

METHODS

A systematic search of various databases from 1 January 2013 to 30 December 2023 was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes, including PS insertion accuracy and breach rate, were analyzed using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy of PS insertion using RG, based on 37 studies involving 3,837 patients and 22,117 PS, is 97.9%, with a breach rate of 0.021. RG demonstrated superior accuracy compared to FHG and CTG, with breach rates of 3.4 and 0.015 respectively for RG versus FHG, and 3.8 and 0.026 for RG versus CTG. Additionally, RG was associated with reduced mean estimated blood loss compared to CTG, indicating improved safety.

CONCLUSIONS

The RG is associated with enhanced accuracy of PS insertion and reduced breach rates over other methods. However, additional randomized controlled trials comparing these modalities are needed for further validation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023483997.

Comparison of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails and cohort studies

BACKGROUND

As an emerging technology in robot-assisted (RA) surgery, the potential benefits of its application in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) lack substantial support from current evidence.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate whether the RA TLIF is superior to FG TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed studies comparing RA versus FG TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases through July 2022 by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCO), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, VIP, and the Cochrane Library, as well as the references of published review articles. Both cohort studies (CSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Evaluation criteria included the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement, proximal facet joint violation (FJV), radiation exposure, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and surgical revision. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias and ROBINS-I Tool. Random-effects models were used, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) was employed as the effect measure. We conducted subgroup analyses based on surgical type, the specific robot system used, and the study design. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Our search identified 539 articles, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that RA had 1.03-folds higher "clinically acceptable" accuracy than FG (RR: 1.0382, 95% CI: 1.0273-1.0493). And RA had 1.12-folds higher "perfect" accuracy than FG group (RR: 1.1167, 95% CI: 1.0726-1.1626). In the case of proximal FJV, our results indicate a 74% reduction in occurrences for patients undergoing RA pedicle screw placement compared to those in the FG group (RR: 0.2606, 95%CI: 0.2063- 0.3293). Seventeen CSs and two RCTs reported the duration of time. The results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference between RA and FG group (SMD: 0.1111, 95%CI: -0.391-0.6131), but the results of RCTs suggest that the patients who underwent RA-TLIF need more surgery time than FG (SMD: 3.7213, 95%CI: 3.0756-4.3669). Sixteen CSs and two RCTs reported the EBL. The results suggest that the patients who underwent RA pedicle screw placement had fewer EBL than FG group (CSs: SMD: -1.9151, 95%CI: -3.1265-0.7036, RCTs: SMD: -5.9010, 95%CI: -8.7238-3.0782). For radiation exposure, the results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference in radiation time between RA and FG group (SMD: -0.5256, 95%CI: -1.4357-0.3845), but the patients who underwent RA pedicle screw placement had fewer radiation dose than FG group (SMD: -2.2682, 95%CI: -3.1953-1.3411). And four CSs and one RCT reported the number of revision case. The results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference in the number of revision case between RA and FG group (RR: 0.4087,95% CI 0.1592-1.0495). Our findings are limited by the residual heterogeneity of the included studies, which may limit the interpretation of the results.

CONCLUSION

In TLIF, RA technology exhibits enhanced precision in pedicle screw placement when compared to FG methods. This accuracy contributes to advantages such as the protection of adjacent facet joints and reductions in intraoperative radiation dosage and blood loss. However, the longer preoperative preparation time associated with RA procedures results in comparable surgical duration and radiation time to FG techniques. Presently, FG screw placement remains the predominant approach, with clinical surgeons possessing greater proficiency in its application. Consequently, the integration of RA into TLIF surgery may not be considered the optimal choice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023441600.

The Comparison between Spinal Facet Joint Toothed Plate and Traditional Pedicle Screw-rod on Reduction of Thoracolumbar Fracture

OBJECTIVE

Thoracolumbar fractures are one of the most common fractures in clinical practice. Surgical intervention is recommended to restore spinal alignment or decompress the nerves when there are unstable fractures or neurological injuries. However, after excessive forward thrust force restoration, facet joint dislocation often occurs between the upper vertebra and the fractured vertebra, which usually leads to unsatisfactory reduction outcomes. Herein, we propose a novel spinal facet joint toothed plate to assist in fracture reduction. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the new spinal facet joint toothed plate in preventing facet joint dislocation, and its advantages compared to traditional pedicle screw-rod decompression.

METHODS

A total of 26 patients in the toothed plate group and 93 patients in the traditional group who experienced thoracolumbar fracture with reduction were retrospectively included. Relevant patients' information and clinical parameters were collected. Furthermore, visual analogue scores (VAS) scores and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were also collected. Moreover, imaging parameters were calculated based on radiographs. Correlated data were analyzed by χ2 test and t test.

RESULTS

All patients in this study had no postoperative complications. Postoperative VAS scores and ODI scores (p < 0.001) were statistically significant (p < 0.001) in both groups compared with preoperative scores and further decreased (p < 0.001) at final follow-up. In addition, the postoperative vertebral margin ratio (VMR) (p < 0.001) and vertebral angle of the injured vertebrae (p < 0.001) were significantly improved compared with the preoperative period. There were no significant differences in postoperative VAS scores and ODI scores between the two groups. However, toothed plate reduction significantly improved the VMR (p < 0.05) and vertebral angle (p < 0.05) compared with conventional reduction. Ultimately, the total screw accuracy was 98.72% (sum of levels 0 and I), with 100% screw accuracy in the segment related to the tooth plate in the tooth plate group. The dislocation rate was higher in the conventional group (6.45%) than in the new serrated plate repositioning group (0.00%).

CONCLUSION

The facet toothed plate assisted reduction method prevents facet joint dislocation and improves fracture reduction compared to traditional reduction technique, hence it could be considered as a novel surgical strategy for thoracolumbar fracture reduction.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Fluoroscopic-Guided Surgery on the Accuracy of Spine Pedicle Screw Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Spinal fusion is a common method by which surgeons decrease instability and deformity of the spinal segment targeted. Pedicle screws are vital tools in fusion surgeries and advancements in technology have introduced several modalities of screw placement. Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in robot-assisted (RA) versus fluoroscopic-guided (FG) techniques. The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed from January 2007 through to August 8, 2022, to identify relevant studies. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement was determined using the Gertzbein-Robbins (GR) classification system. Facet joint violation (FJV), total case radiation dosage, total case radiation time, total operating room (OR) time, and total case blood loss were collected. Twenty-one articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Successful screw accuracy (GR Grade A or B) was found to be 1.02 (95% confidence interval: 1.01 - 1.04) times more likely with the RA technique. In defining accuracy solely based on the GR Grade A criteria, screws placed with RA were 1.10 (95% confidence interval: 1.06 - 1.15) times more likely to be accurate. There was no significant difference between the two techniques with respect to blood loss (Hedges' g: 1.16, 95% confidence interval: -0.75 to 3.06) or case radiation time (Hedges' g: -0.34, 95% CI: -1.22 to 0.53). FG techniques were associated with shorter operating room times (Hedges' g: -1.03, 95% confidence interval: -1.76 to -0.31), and higher case radiation dosage (Hedges' g: 1.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.11 to 2.10). This review suggests that RA may slightly increase pedicle screw accuracy and decrease per-case radiation dosage compared to FG techniques. However, total operating times for RA cases are greater than those for FG cases.

Effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted (RA) technology has been widely used in spine surgery. This analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of RA minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and fluoroscopy-assisted (FA) MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases (DLSD). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched, and the outcomes included surgical parameters [operation time, blood loss, number of fluoroscopic, accuracy of pedicle screw position, superior facet joint violation (FJV)], and clinical indexes (Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, complications). Eleven articles involving 1066 patients were included. RA group produced better results than the FA group in operation time (WMD = - 6.59; 95% CI - 12.79 to - 0.40; P = 0.04), blood loss (WMD = - 34.81; 95% CI - 50.55 to - 19.08; P < 0.0001), number of fluoroscopic (WMD = - 18.24; 95% CI - 30.63 to - 5.85; P = 0.004), accuracy of pedicle screw position: Grade A (OR = 3.16; 95% CI 2.36-4.23; P < 0.00001), Grade B (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28-0.54; P < 0.00001), Grade C (OR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.54; P = 0.0002), and Grade D (OR = 0.17; 95% CI 0.03-0.98; P = 0.05), FJV: Grade 0 (OR = 3.27; 95% CI 1.34-8.02; P = 0.010), Grade 1 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.38; P < 0.00001), Grade 2 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.51; P = 0.0002), and Grade 3 (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.07-0.93; P = 0.04). But no significant differences in VAS score, ODI, JOA score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, and complications. These results demonstrate a significant improvement in the intraoperative course of the RA technique. However, RA-MIS-TLIF has not yet demonstrated significant advantages in terms of postoperative symptom relief and functional improvement. Future research and clinical practice should further explore the efficacy of this technique to optimize outcomes and quality of life for patients with DLSD. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023454405).

Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted PKP or PVP for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA), which includes percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) and percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP). Robot-assisted (RA) and fluoroscopy-assisted (FA) are important methods for treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs), though it is still unclear which is superior. This analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of RA and FA. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched, the outcomes included surgical parameters (leakage rate, operation time, number of fluoroscopic, injection volume, inclination angle), and clinical indexes (hospital stays, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Cobb angle, the midline height of vertebral). Thirteen articles involving 1094 patients were included. RA group produced better results than the FA group in the leakage rate (OR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.17-0.42; P < 0.00001), number of fluoroscopic (WMD = - 13.88; 95% CI - 18.47 to - 9.30; P < 0.00001), inclination angle (WMD = 5.02; 95% CI 4.42-5.61; P < 0.00001), hospital stays (WMD = - 0.32; 95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.05; P = 0.02), VAS within 3 days (WMD = - 0.19; 95% CI - 0.26 to - 0.12; P < 0.00001), Cobb angle within 3 days (WMD = - 1.35; 95% CI - 2.56 to - 0.14; P = 0.003) and Cobb angle after 1 month (WMD = - 1.02; 95% CI - 1.84 to - 0.20; P = 0.01). But no significant differences in operation time, injection volume, ODI, the midline height of vertebral, and VAS score after 1 month. Our analysis found that the RA group had lower cement leakage rates, number of fluoroscopic and hospital stays, a larger inclination angle, better short-term pain improvement, and Cobb angle improvement. It is worth acknowledging that robotic-assisted surgery holds promise for the development of spine surgery. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023393497).

Safety and accuracy of cannulated pedicle screw placement in scoliosis surgery: a comparison of robotic-navigation, O-arm-based navigation, and freehand techniques

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and accuracy of cannulated pedicle screw placement using a robotic-navigation technique, O-arm-based navigation technique, or freehand technique.

METHODS

This study analyzed 106 consecutive patients who underwent scoliosis surgery. Thirty-two patients underwent robotic-navigation-assisted pedicle screw insertion (Group 1), 34 patients underwent O-arm-based navigation-guided pedicle screw insertion (Group 2), and 40 patients underwent freehand pedicle screw insertion (Group 3). The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of screw placement. Secondary outcome parameters included operation time, blood loss, radiation exposure, and postoperative stay.

RESULTS

A total of 2035 cannulated pedicle screws were implanted in 106 patients. The accuracy rate of the first pedicle screw placement during operation was significantly greater in Group 1 (94.7%) than in Group 2 (89.2%; P < 0.001). The accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement postoperatively decreased in the order of Group 1 (96.7%) > Group 2 (93.0%) > Group 3 (80.4%; P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in blood loss or postoperative stay among the three groups (P > 0.05). The operation times of Group 1 and Group 2 were significantly longer than that of Group 3 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The robotic-navigation and O-arm-based navigation techniques effectively increased the accuracy and safety of pedicle screw insertion alternative to the freehand technique in scoliosis surgery. Compared with the O-arm-based navigation technique, the robotic-navigation technique increases the mean operation time, but also increases the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. A three-dimensional scan after insertion of the K-wire may increase the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the O-arm-based navigation technique.

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between robot-assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement in spine surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement technique offers greater accuracy than the traditional freehand screw placement technique. However, it is controversial whether there is a difference between the two procedures in terms of improved clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science to identify potentially eligible articles. Indispensable data such as the year of publication, study type, age, number of patients, sex distribution, and outcomes were extracted. The outcome indicators of interest included Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) score, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and post-operative length of stay. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies with 508 participants were included. Eight were related to ΔVAS, six were related to ΔODI, seven were related to operative time, five were related to intraoperative blood loss, and seven were related to the length of hospitalization. The results showed that, in terms of ΔVAS (95% CI, -1.20 to -0.36, P = 0.0003) and ΔODI (95% CI, -2.50 to -0.48, P = 0.004), robot-assisted pedicle screw placement technique scored higher than traditional freehand technique. Additionally, the intraoperative blood loss (95% CI, -140.34 to -10.94, P = 0.02) and the length of hospitalization (95% CI, -2.59 to -0.31, P = 0.01) for patients who underwent robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement were less than that of those who underwent the conventional freehand screw placement. No significant difference was found between robot-assisted techniques and conventional freehand techniques in pedicle screw placement in surgical time (95% CI, -2.24 to 26.32, P = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted technique helps improve short-term clinical outcomes, reduce intraoperative blood loss and patient suffering, and shorten recovery time compared to the freehand technique.