Bony fixation in the era of spinal robotics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Spinal Robotics in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Systematic Review

Spinal robotics have the potential to improve the consistency of outcomes in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The objective of this paper is to assess the accuracy of pedicle and S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws placed with robotic guidance in ASD patients. PubMed Central, Google Scholar, and an institutional library database were queried until May 2023. Articles were included if they described ASD correction via robotic guidance and pedicle and/or S2AI screw accuracy. Articles were excluded if they described pediatric/adolescent spinal deformity or included outcomes for both ASD and non-ASD patients without separating the data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Primary endpoints were pedicle screw accuracy based on the Gertzbein-Robbins Scale and self-reported accuracy percentages for S2AI screws. Data were extracted for patient demographics, operative details, and perioperative outcomes and assessed using descriptive statistics. Five studies comprising 138 patients were included (mean age 66.0 years; 85 females). A total of 1,508 screws were inserted using robotic assistance (51 S2AI screws). Two studies assessing pedicle screws reported clinically acceptable trajectory rates of 98.7% and 96.0%, respectively. Another study reported a pedicle screw accuracy rate of 95.5%. Three studies reported 100% accuracy across 51 total S2AI screws. Eight total complications and 4 reoperations were reported. Current evidence supports the application of robotics in ASD surgery as safe and effective for placement of both screw types. However, due to the paucity of data, a comprehensive assessment of its incremental benefit over other techniques cannot be made. Further work using expanded cohorts is merited.

Pedicle screw placement accuracy in robot-assisted versus image-guided freehand surgery of thoraco-lumbar spine (ROBARTHRODESE): study protocol for a single-centre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Robotic spinal surgery may result in better pedicle screw placement accuracy, and reduction in radiation exposure and length of stay, compared to freehand surgery. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to compare screw placement accuracy of robot-assisted surgery with integrated 3D computer-assisted navigation versus freehand surgery with 2D fluoroscopy for arthrodesis of the thoraco-lumbar spine.

METHODS

This is a single-centre evaluator-blinded RCT with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants (n = 300) will be randomized into two groups, robot-assisted (Mazor X Stealth Edition) versus freehand, after stratification based on the planned number of pedicle screws needed for surgery. The primary outcome is the proportion of pedicle screws placed with grade A accuracy (Gertzbein-Robbins classification) on postoperative computed tomography images. The secondary outcomes are intervention time, operation room occupancy time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, surgeon's radiation exposure, screw fracture/loosening, superior-level facet joint violation, complication rate, reoperation rate on the same level or one level above, functional and clinical outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, pain, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, sensory and motor status) and cost-utility analysis.

DISCUSSION

This RCT will provide insight into whether robot-assisted surgery with the newest generation spinal robot yields better pedicle screw placement accuracy than freehand surgery. Potential benefits of robot-assisted surgery include lower complication and revision rates, shorter length of stay, lower radiation exposure and reduction of economic cost of the overall care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05553028. Registered on September 23, 2022.

The use of robot-assisted surgery for the unstable traumatic spine: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Robotic assistance has been shown to increase instrumentation placement accuracy in open and minimally invasive spinal fusion. These gains have been achieved without increases in operative times, blood loss, or hospitalization duration. However, most work has been done in the degenerative population and little is known of the utility of robotic assistance when applied to spinal trauma. This is largely due to the uncertainty stemming from the disruption of normal anatomy by the traumatic injury. Since the robot depends upon registration for instrumentation guidance according to the fiducials it uses, trauma can introduce unique challenges. The present study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic assistance in a consecutive cohort of spine trauma patients.

Methods

All patients with Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Scale (TLICS) >4 who underwent robot-assisted spinal fusion using the Globus ExcelsiusGPS at a single tertiary care center for trauma between 2020 and 2022 were identified. Demographic, clinical, and surgical data were collected and analyzed; the primary endpoints were operative time, fluoroscopy time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, admission time, and 90-day readmission rate. The paired t-test was used to compare differences between mean values when looking at the number of surgical levels.

Results

Forty-two patients undergoing robot-assisted spinal surgery were included (mean age 61.3±17.1 year; 47% female. Patients were stratified by the number of operative levels, 2 (n = 10), 3-4 (n = 11), 5 to 6 (n = 13), or >6 (n = 8). There appeared to be a positive correlation between number of levels instrumented and odds of postoperative complications, admission duration, fluoroscopy time, and estimated blood loss. There were no instances of screw malposition or breach.

Conclusions

This initial experience suggests robotic assistance can be safely employed in the spine trauma population. Additional experiences in larger patient populations are necessary to delineate those traumatic pathologies most amenable to robotic assistance.

Spinal robotics in cervical spine surgery: a systematic review with key concepts and technical considerations

OBJECTIVE

Spinal robotics for thoracolumbar procedures, predominantly employed for the insertion of pedicle screws, is currently an emerging topic in the literature. The use of robotics in instrumentation of the cervical spine has not been broadly explored. In this review, the authors aimed to coherently synthesize the existing literature of intraoperative robotic use in the cervical spine and explore considerations for future directions and developments in cervical spinal robotics.

METHODS

A literature search in the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases was performed for the purpose of retrieving all articles reporting on cervical spine surgery with the use of robotics. For the purposes of this study, randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, retrospective case series, and individual case reports were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized to assess risk of bias of the studies included in the review. To present and synthesize results, data were extracted from the included articles and analyzed using the PyMARE library for effect-size meta-analysis.

RESULTS

On careful review, 6 articles published between 2016 and 2022 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, including 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 nonrandomized controlled trial, 2 case series, and 2 case reports. These studies featured a total of 110 patients meeting the inclusion criteria (mean age 53.9 years, range 29-77 years; 64.5% males). A total of 482 cervical screws were placed with the use of a surgical robot, which yielded an average screw deviation of 0.95 mm. Cervical pedicle screws were the primary screw type used, at a rate of 78.6%. According to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, 97.7% of screws in this review achieved a clinically acceptable grade. The average duration of surgery, blood loss, and postoperative length of stay were all decreased in minimally invasive robotic surgery relative to open procedures. Only 1 (0.9%) postoperative complication was reported, which was a surgical site infection, and the mean length of follow-up was 2.7 months. No mortality was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted cervical screw placement is associated with acceptable rates of clinical grading, operative time, blood loss, and postoperative complications-all of which are equal to or improved relative to the metrics seen in the conventional use of fluoroscopy or computer-assisted navigation for cervical screw placement.

Development and Clinical Trial of a New Orthopedic Surgical Robot for Positioning and Navigation

Robot-assisted orthopedic surgery has great application prospects, and the accuracy of the robot is the key to its overall performance. The aim of this study was to develop a new orthopedic surgical robot to assist in spinal surgeries and to compare its feasibility and accuracy with the existing orthopedic robot. A new type of high-precision orthopedic surgical robot (Tuoshou) was developed. A multicenter, randomized controlled trial was carried out to compare the Tuoshou with the TiRobot (TINAVI Medical Technologies Co., Ltd., Beijing) to evaluate the accuracy and safety of their navigation and positioning. A total of 112 patients were randomized, and 108 patients completed the study. The position deviation of the Kirschner wire placement in the Tuoshou group was smaller than that in the TiRobot group (p = 0.014). The Tuoshou group was better than the TiRobot group in terms of the pedicle screw insertion accuracy (p = 0.016) and entry point deviation (p < 0.001). No differences were observed in endpoint deviation (p = 0.170), axial deviation (p = 0.170), sagittal deviation (p = 0.324), and spatial deviation (p = 0.299). There was no difference in security indicators. The new orthopedic surgical robot was highly accurate and optimized for clinical practice, making it suitable for clinical application.