A preliminary study of a novel robotic system for pedicle screw fixation: A randomised controlled trial

Accuracy and postoperative assessment of robot-assisted placement of pedicle screws during scoliosis surgery compared with conventional freehand technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

The complexity of human anatomical structures and the variability of vertebral body structures in patients with scoliosis pose challenges in pedicle screw placement during spinal deformity correction surgery. Through technological advancements, robots have been introduced in spinal surgery to assist with pedicle screw placement.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and CNKI databases and comparative studies assessing the accuracy and postoperative efficacy of pedicle screw placement using robotic assistance or freehand techniques in patients with scoliosis were included. The analysis evaluated the accuracy of screw placement, operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, and complications.

RESULTS

Seven studies comprising 584 patients were included in the meta-analysis, with 282 patients (48.3%) in the robot-assisted group and 320 (51.7%) in the freehand group. Robot-assisted placement showed significantly better clinically acceptable screw placement results compared with freehand placement (odds ratio [OR]: 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.75-3.91, P < 0.0001). However, there were no statistically significant differences in achieving "perfect" screw placement between the two groups (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.95-2.46, P = 0.08). The robot-assisted group had longer operation durations (mean deviation [MD]: 43.64, 95% CI: 22.25-64.74, P < 0.0001) but shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD: - 1.12, 95% CI: - 2.15 to - 0.08, P = 0.03) than the freehand group. There were no significant differences in overall complication rates or intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. There was no significant difference in Cobb Angle between the two groups before and after operation.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement offers higher accuracy and shorter hospital stay than freehand placement in scoliosis surgery; although the robotics approach is associated with longer operative durations, similar complication rates and intraoperative blood loss.

Development of a software system for surgical robots based on multimodal image fusion: study protocol

Background

Surgical robots are gaining increasing popularity because of their capability to improve the precision of pedicle screw placement. However, current surgical robots rely on unimodal computed tomography (CT) images as baseline images, limiting their visualization to vertebral bone structures and excluding soft tissue structures such as intervertebral discs and nerves. This inherent limitation significantly restricts the applicability of surgical robots. To address this issue and further enhance the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement, this study will develop a software system for surgical robots based on multimodal image fusion. Such a system can extend the application range of surgical robots, such as surgical channel establishment, nerve decompression, and other related operations.

Methods

Initially, imaging data of the patients included in the study are collected. Professional workstations are employed to establish, train, validate, and optimize algorithms for vertebral bone segmentation in CT and magnetic resonance (MR) images, intervertebral disc segmentation in MR images, nerve segmentation in MR images, and registration fusion of CT and MR images. Subsequently, a spine application model containing independent modules for vertebrae, intervertebral discs, and nerves is constructed, and a software system for surgical robots based on multimodal image fusion is designed. Finally, the software system is clinically validated.

Discussion

We will develop a software system based on multimodal image fusion for surgical robots, which can be applied to surgical access establishment, nerve decompression, and other operations not only for robot-assisted nail placement. The development of this software system is important. First, it can improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, percutaneous vertebroplasty, percutaneous kyphoplasty, and other surgeries. Second, it can reduce the number of fluoroscopies, shorten the operation time, and reduce surgical complications. In addition, it would be helpful to expand the application range of surgical robots by providing key imaging data for surgical robots to realize surgical channel establishment, nerve decompression, and other operations.

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.

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.

Spine Surgical Robotics: Current Status and Recent Clinical Applications

With the development of artificial intelligence and the further deepening of medical-engineering integration, spine surgical robot-assisted (RA) technique has made significant progress and its applicability in clinical practice is constantly expanding in recent years. In this review, we have systematically summarized the majority of literature related to spine surgical robots in the past decade, and not only classified robots accordingly, but also summarized the latest research progress in RA technique for screw placement such as cervical, thoracic, and lumbar pedicle screws, cortical bone trajectory screws, cervical lateral mass screws, and S2 sacroiliac screws; guiding targeted puncture and placement of endoscope via the intervertebral foramen; complete resection of spinal tumor tissue; and decompressive laminectomy. In addition, this report also provides a detailed evaluation of RA technique's advantages and disadvantages, and clarifies the accuracy, safety, and practicality of RA technique. We consider that this review can help clinical physicians further understand and familiarize the current clinical application status of spine surgical robots, thereby promoting the continuous improvement and popularization of RA technique, and ultimately benefiting numerous patients.

Complications Have Not Improved With Newer Generation Robots

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to see whether upgrades in newer generation robots improve safety and clinical outcomes following spine surgery.

METHODS

All patients undergoing robotic-assisted spine surgery with the Mazor X Stealth EditionTM (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) from 2019 to 2022 at a combined orthopedic and neurosurgical spine service were retrospectively reviewed. Robot related complications were recorded.

RESULTS

264 consecutive patients (54.1% female; age at time of surgery 63.5 ± 15.3 years) operated on by 14 surgeons were analyzed. The average number of instrumented levels with robotics was 4.2 ± 2.7, while the average number of instrumented screws with robotics was 8.3 ± 5.3. There was a nearly 50/50 split between an open and minimally invasive approach. Six patients (2.2%) had robot related complications. Three patients had temporary nerve root injuries from misplaced screws that required reoperation, one patient had a permanent motor deficit from the tap damaging the L1 and L2 nerve roots, one patient had a durotomy from a misplaced screw that required laminectomy and intra-operative repair, and one patient had a temporary sensory L5 nerve root injury from a drill. Half of these complications (3/6) were due to a reference frame error. In total, four patients (1.5%) required reoperation to fix 10 misplaced screws.

CONCLUSION

Despite newer generation robots, robot related complications are not decreasing. As half the robot related complications result from reference frame errors, this is an opportunity for improvement.

Clinical efficacy of robotic spine surgery: an updated systematic review of 20 randomized controlled trials

Purpose

To determine whether using robots in spine surgery results in more clinical advantages and fewer adverse consequences.

Methods

Between October 1990 and October 2022, a computer-based search was conducted through the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, VIP databases, and WAN FANG. The study only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted surgery with those of conventional spine surgery. The review was conducted following PRISMA 2020, and AMSTAR-2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality. R version 4.2.1 was used in the meta-analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration Tool was used for evaluating the risk of bias.

Results

This study analyzed 954 participants from 20 RCTs involving cervical spondylosis, lumbar degenerative disease, scoliosis, etc. The robot-assisted group outperformed the freehand group in terms of intraoperative blood loss, number of screws in grade A position, grade A + B position, radiation dose, and hospital stay. Operation duration, visual analog scale scores of low back pain, Oswestry disability index, and radiation exposure time did not significantly differ between the two groups.

Conclusions

Although robotic spine surgery is more accurate in pedicle screw placement than conventional methods, the robot group did not demonstrate an advantage in terms of clinical efficacy. Studies of complications and cost-effectiveness are still very rare.

Robotics and navigation in spine surgery: A narrative review

Introduction

In recent decades, there has been a rising trend of spinal surgical interventional techniques, especially Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (MIS), to improve the quality of life in an effective and safe manner. However, MIS techniques tend to be difficult to adapt and are associated with an increased risk of radiation exposure. This led to the development of 'computer-assisted surgery' in 1983, which integrated CT images into spinal procedures evolving into the present day robotic-assisted spine surgery. The authors aim to review the development of spine surgeries and provide an overview of the benefits offered. It includes all the comparative studies available to date.

Methods

The manuscript has been prepared as per "SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles". The authors searched Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus using the terms "(((((Robotics) OR (Navigation)) OR (computer assisted)) OR (3D navigation)) OR (Freehand)) OR (O-Arm)) AND (spine surgery)" and 68 articles were included for analysis excluding review articles, meta-analyses, or systematic literature.

Results

The authors noted that 49 out of 68 studies showed increased precision of pedicle screw insertion, 10 out of 19 studies show decreased radiation exposure, 13 studies noted decreased operative time, 4 out of 8 studies showed reduced hospital stay and significant reduction in rates of infections, neurological deficits, the need for revision surgeries, and rates of radiological ASD, with computer-assisted techniques.

Conclusion

Computer-assisted surgeries have better accuracy of pedicle screw insertion, decreased blood loss and operative time, reduced radiation exposure, improved functional outcomes, and lesser complications.

Accuracies of various types of spinal robot in robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With the popularization of robot-assisted spinal surgeries, it is still uncertain whether robots with different designs could lead to different results in the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. This study aimed to compare the pedicle screw inserting accuracies among the spinal surgeries assisted by various types of robot and estimate the rank probability of each robot-assisted operative technique involved.

METHODS

The electronic literature database of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CNKI, WANFANG and the Cochrane Library was searched in November 2021. The primary outcome was the Gertzbein-Robbins classification of pedicle screws inserted with various operative techniques. After the data extraction and direct meta-analysis process, a network model was established in the Bayesian framework and further analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

Among all the 15 eligible RCTs, 4 types of robot device, namely Orthbot, Renaissance, SpineAssist and TiRobot, were included in this study. In the network meta-analysis, the Orthbot group (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13-0.58), the Renaissance group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.86), the SpineAssist group (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.34) and the conventional surgery group (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.31) were inferior to the TiRobot group in the proportion of grade A pedicle screws. Moreover, the results of rank probabilities revealed that in terms of accuracy, the highest-ranked robot was TiRobot, followed by Renaissance and Orthbot.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, current RCT evidence indicates that TiRobot has an advantage in the accuracy of the pedicle screw placement, while there is no significant difference among the Orthbot-assisted technique, the Renaissance-assisted technique, the conventional freehand technique, and the SpineAssist-assisted technique in accuracy.

Advancing medical device regulatory reforms for innovation, translation and industry development in China

The blossoming Chinese medical device market calls for a science-based regulatory system in China. Consistent efforts have been made to advance the medical device regulatory reforms for innovation, translation and industry development. In this article, we report both the latest regulatory requirements which aim to ensure safety and efficacy for patients while encouraging innovation of the medical device industry, and the key programs on medical devices covered in the Regulatory Science Action Plan (RSAP) of the National Medical Products Administration of China (NMPA). The main features of the revised regulations are first elucidated before the opportunities for translational research are interpreted, including those for additive manufacturing and customized devices, drug–device combination products, artificial intelligence-powered software and surgical robots, and nanomaterials for medical devices. Finally, a regulatory perspective is provided to researchers who expect to translate their technologies in the Chinese medical device market. Important issues including early attention to critical market and clinical needs, understanding the true principle and spirit underlying the changing regulations and standards, and protecting intellectual property rights with comprehensive measures, are discussed. These developments warrant further investigations into the distinct role of regulatory science in shaping medical devices research and development.

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.

Association of robot-assisted techniques with the accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement: A network pooling analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditional paired meta-analyses have yielded inconsistent results for the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement due to the high heterogeneity within studies. This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement.

METHODS

The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with no language limitations from inception to Jan 4, 2022. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results. The main outcomes were accuracy of pedicle screw placement, proximal facet joint violation, and complications. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022301417).

FINDINGS

26 trials including 2046 participants evaluating robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement were included in this study. Our pooled results showed that Renaissance (OR 2.86; [95% CI 1.79 to 4.57]) and TiRobot (OR 3.10; [95% CI 2.19 to 4.40]) yielded higher rates of perfect pedicle screw insertion (Grades A) than the conventional freehand technique. Renaissance (OR 2.82; [95% CI 1.51 to 5.25]) and TiRobot (OR 4.58; [95% CI 2.65 to 7.89]) yielded higher rates of clinically acceptable pedicle screw insertion (Grades A+B). However, ROSA, SpineAssist, and Orthobot were not associated with higher perfect pedicle screw insertion and clinically acceptable pedicle screw insertion rates. Robot-assisted techniques were associated with low rates of proximal facet joint violation (OR 0.18; [95% CI 0.10 to 0.32]; I²:9.55%) and overall complications (OR 0.38; [95% CI 0.23 to 0.63]; I²:27.05%). Moreover, robot-assisted techniques were associated with lower radiation doses (MD -14.38; [95% CI -25.62 to -3.13]; I²:100.00%).

INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggest that only Renaissance and TiRobot systems are associated with high accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement. Robotic-assisted techniques hold great promise in spinal surgery due to their safety and effectiveness.

FUNDING

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81871818), Tangdu Hospital Seed Talent Program (Fei-Long Wei) and Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (No.2019JM-265).

Initial Intraoperative Experience with Robotic-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement with Cirq® Robotic Alignment: An Evaluation of the First 70 Screws

BACKGROUND

Robot-guided spine surgery is based on a preoperatively planned trajectory that is reproduced in the operating room by the robotic device. This study presents our initial experience with thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement using Brainlab's Cirq^® surgeon-controlled robotic arm (BrainLab, Munich, Germany).

METHODS

All patients who underwent robotic-assisted implantation of pedicle screws in the thoracolumbar spine were included in the study. Our workflow, consisting of preoperative imagining, screw planning, intraoperative imaging with automatic registration, fusion of the preoperative and intraoperative imaging with a review of the preplanned screw trajectories, robotic-assisted insertion of K-wires, followed by a fluoroscopy-assisted insertion of pedicle screws and control iCT scan, is described.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients (5 male and 7 females, mean age 67.4 years) underwent 13 surgeries using the Cirq^® Robotic Alignment Module for thoracolumbar pedicle screw implantation. Spondylodiscitis, metastases, osteoporotic fracture, and spinal canal stenosis were detected. A total of 70 screws were implanted. The mean time per screw was 08:27 ± 06:54 min. The mean time per screw for the first 7 surgeries (first 36 screws) was 16:03 ± 09:32 min and for the latter 6 surgeries (34 screws) the mean time per screw was 04:35 ± 02:11 min (p < 0.05). Mean entry point deviation was 1.9 ± 1.23 mm, mean deviation from the tip of the screw was 2.61 ± 1.6 mm and mean angular deviation was 3.5° ± 2°. For screw-placement accuracy we used the CT-based Gertzbein and Robbins System (GRS). Of the total screws, 65 screws were GRS A screws (92.85%), one screw was a GRS B screw, and two further screws were grade C. Two screws were D screws (2.85%) and underwent intraoperative revision. There were no perioperative deficits.

CONCLUSION

Brainlab's Cirq^® Robotic Alignment surgeon-controlled robotic arm is a safe and beneficial method for accurate thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement with high accuracy.

Comparison of accuracy and safety between robot-assisted and conventional fluoroscope assisted placement of pedicle screws in thoracolumbar spine: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the screw positioning accuracy, complications related to pedicle screw implantation, revision rate and radiation exposure between robot screw placement and traditional fluoroscopic screw placement.

METHODS

We searched several databases, including CNKI, Wanfang database, cqvip datebase, PubMed, Cochrane library and EMBASE, to identify articles that might meet the criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 13 randomized controlled trial were included. The results showed that the pedicle screw accuracy of the robot assisted group was significantly better than that of the conventional freehand (FH) group (OR = 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] [2.75,4.45], P < .0001). There was no significant difference in the complications caused by pedicle screw implantation between the robot-assisted group and the conventional FH group [OR = 0.39, 95%CI (0.10,1.48), P = .17]. The rate of facet joint invasion in the robot-assisted group was significantly lower than that in the conventional FH group (OR = 0.06, 95%CI [0.01,0.29], P = .0006). The revision rate in the robot-assisted group was significantly lower than that in the conventional FH group (OR = 0.19, 95%CI [0.05,0.71], P = 0.0.01). There was no significant difference in the average radiation of pedicle screws implantation between the robot-assisted group and the conventional FH (mean difference = -7.94, 95%CI [-20.18,4.30], P = .20).

CONCLUSION

The robot-assisted group was significantly better than the conventional FH in the accuracy of pedicle screw placement and facet joint invasion rate and revision rate. There was no significant difference in the complication and fluoroscopy time between the two groups.