Safety of robotic-assisted screw placement for spine surgery: Experience from the initial 125 cases

Level-specific comparison of 3D navigated and robotic arm-guided screw placement: an accuracy assessment of 1210 pedicle screws in lumbar surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Robotic spine surgery, utilizing 3D imaging and robotic arms, has been shown to improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement compared to conventional methods, although its superiority remains under debate. There are few studies evaluating the accuracy of 3D navigated versus robotic-guided screw placement across lumbar levels, addressing anatomical challenges to refine surgical strategies and patient safety.

PURPOSE

This study aims to investigate the pedicle screw placement accuracy between 3D navigation and robotic arm-guided systems across distinct lumbar levels.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected registry PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing fusion surgery with pedicle screw placement in the prone position, using either via 3D image navigation only or robotic arm guidance OUTCOME MEASURE: Radiographical screw accuracy was assessed by the postoperative computed tomography (CT) according to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, particularly focused on accuracy at different lumbar levels.

METHODS

Accuracy of screw placement in the 3D navigation (Nav group) and robotic arm guidance (Robo group) was compared using Chi-squared test/Fisher's exact test with effect size measured by Cramer's V, both overall and at each specific lumbosacral spinal level.

RESULTS

A total of 321 patients were included (Nav, 157; Robo, 189) and evaluated 1210 screws (Nav, 651; Robo 559). The Robo group demonstrated significantly higher overall accuracy (98.6 vs. 93.9%; p<.001, V=0.25). This difference of no breach screw rate was signified the most at the L3 level (No breach screw: Robo 91.3 vs. 57.8%, p<.001, V=0.35) followed by L4 (89.6 vs. 64.7%, p<.001, V=0.28), and L5 (92.0 vs. 74.5%, p<.001, V=0.22). However, screw accuracy at S1 was not significant between the groups (81.1 vs. 72.0%, V=0.10).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the enhanced accuracy of robotic arm-guided systems compared to 3D navigation for pedicle screw placement in lumbar fusion surgeries, especially at the L3, L4, and L5 levels. However, at the S1 level, both systems exhibit similar effectiveness, underscoring the importance of understanding each system's specific advantages for optimization of surgical complications.

Utility of a Navigated High-Speed Drill in Robotic-Assisted Screw Placement for Spine Surgery

Purpose To elucidate the utility of a navigated high-speed drill used after the version upgrade in surgeries assisted by a spinal robotics system. Methods The subjects were 166 patients who underwent screw placement using a spinal robotics system between April 2021 to July 2023. A significant change during the study was the introduction of a navigated high-speed drill in 80 post-upgrade cases, aimed at improving drilling accuracy. Screw accuracy was analyzed using the Gertzbein and Robbins classification on postoperative CT scans. Screws placed before (pre-upgrade group: 718 screws in 86 cases) and after the system upgrade (post-upgrade group: 747 screws in 80 cases) were compared in terms of perfect accuracy and deviation rates. Results There were no significant differences in demographics or surgical details between the two groups. No significant differences were observed in the overall perfect accuracy rate and deviation rate (2.4% pre-upgrade vs. 2.0% post-upgrade) between the two groups. For the percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS), the perfect accuracy rate was significantly higher, and the deviation rate was significantly lower in the post-upgrade group (26.1% pre-upgrade vs. 4.4% post-upgrade). Notably, the post-upgrade group achieved 100% perfect accuracy and 0% deviation for the cortical bone trajectory screw (CBT) technique. Conclusions The introduction of the navigated high-speed drill did not significantly alter the overall perfect accuracy or deviation rates for robotic-assisted screw placement. However, its use did demonstrate improved outcomes in specific techniques such as PPS and CBT, indicating its potential value in addressing skiving in robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgeries.