Robotic-Assisted Spinal Surgery

Sensorless Based Haptic Feedback Integration In Robot-assisted Pedicle Screw Insertion For Lumbar Spine Surgery: A preliminary cadaveric study

Pedicle screw fixation is an essential surgical technique for addressing various spinal pathologies, including degenerative diseases, trauma, tumors, neoplasms, and infections. Despite its efficacy, the procedure poses significant challenges, notably the limited visibility of spinal anatomical landmarks and the consequent reliance on surgeon's hand-eye coordination. These challenges often result in inaccuracies and high radiation exposure due to the frequent use of fluoroscopy X-ray guidance. Addressing these concerns, this study introduces a novel approach to pedicle screw insertion by utilizing a robot-assisted system that incorporates sensorless based haptics incorporated 5-DOF surgical manipulation. This innovative system aims to minimize radiation exposure and reduce operating time while improving the surgeon's hand posture capabilities. The developed prototype, expected to be implemented using bilateral control, was tested through preliminary cadaveric experiments focused on the insertion of both percutaneous and open pedicle screws at the L4-L5 level of the lumbar spine. Validation of the Sensorless Haptic Feedback feature was an integral part of this study, aiming to enhance precision and safety. The results, confirmed by fluoroscopic x-ray images, demonstrated the successful placement of two percutaneous and two open pedicle screws, with average position and torque errors of 0.011 radians and 0.054 Nm for percutaneous screws, and 0.0116 radians and 0.0057 Nm for open screws, respectively. These findings underscore the potential of the sensorless haptic feedback in a robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion system to significantly reduce radiation exposure and improve surgical outcomes, marking a significant advancement in spinal surgery technology.

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.

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.

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.

The pedicle screw accuracy using a robotic system and measured by a novel three-dimensional method

Robotics in medicine is associated with precision, accuracy, and replicability. Several robotic systems are used in spine surgery. They are all considered shared-control systems, providing "steady-hand" manipulation instruments. Although numerous studies have testified to the benefits of robotic instrumentations, they must address their true accuracy. Our study used the Mazor system under several situations and compared the spatial accuracy of the pedicle screw (PS) insertion and its planned trajectory. We used two cadaveric specimens with intact spinal structures from C7 to S1. PS planning was performed using the two registration methods (preopCT/C-arm or CT-to-fluoroscopy registration). After planning, the implant spatial orientation was defined based on six anatomic parameters using axial and sagittal CT images. Two surgical open and percutaneous access were used to insert the PS. After that, another CT acquisition was taken. Accuracy was classified into optimal, inaccurate and unacceptable according to the degree of screw deviation from its planning using the same spatial orientation method. Based on the type of spatial deviation, we also classified the PS trajectory into 16 pattern errors. Seven (19%) out of 37 implanted screws were considered unacceptable (deviation distances > 2.0 mm or angulation > 5°), and 14 (38%) were inaccurate (> 0.5 mm and ≤ 2.0 mm or > 2.5° and ≤ 5°). CT-to-fluoroscopy registration was superior to preopCT/C-arm (average deviation in 0.9 mm vs. 1.7 mm, respectively, p < 0.003), and percutaneous was slightly better than open but did not reach significance (1.3 mm vs. 1.7 mm, respectively). Regarding pattern error, the tendency was to have more axial than sagittal shifts. Using a quantitative method to categorize the screw 3D position, only 10.8% of the screws were considered unacceptable. However, with a more rigorous concept of inaccuracy, almost half were non-optimal. We also identified that, unlike some previous results, the O-arm registration delivers more accurate implants than the preopCT/C-arm method.

Advances in artificial intelligence, robotics, augmented and virtual reality in neurosurgery

Neurosurgical practitioners undergo extensive and prolonged training to acquire diverse technical proficiencies, while neurosurgical procedures necessitate a substantial amount of pre-, post-, and intraoperative clinical data acquisition, making decisions, attention, and convalescence. The past decade witnessed an appreciable escalation in the significance of artificial intelligence (AI) in neurosurgery. AI holds significant potential in neurosurgery as it supplements the abilities of neurosurgeons to offer optimal interventional and non-interventional care to patients by improving prognostic and diagnostic outcomes in clinical therapy and assisting neurosurgeons in making decisions while surgical interventions to enhance patient outcomes. Other technologies including augmented reality, robotics, and virtual reality can assist and promote neurosurgical methods as well. Moreover, they play a significant role in generating, processing, as well as storing experimental and clinical data. Also, the usage of these technologies in neurosurgery is able to curtail the number of costs linked with surgical care and extend high-quality health care to a wider populace. This narrative review aims to integrate the results of articles that elucidate the role of the aforementioned technologies in neurosurgery.

Surgical Precision and Efficiency of a Novel Electromagnetic System Compared to a Robot-Assisted System in Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement of Endo-LIF

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database study.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy and safety of 2 types of a computer-assisted navigation system for percutaneous pedicle screw placement during endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

From May 2019 to January 2020, data of 56 patients who underwent Endo-LIF with a robot-assisted system and with an electromagnetic navigation system were compared. The pedicles in all patients were subjected to postoperative CT scan to assess screw correction by measuring the perpendicular distance between the pedicle cortical wall and the screw surface. The registration and matching time, guide-wire insertion time, the entire surgery time, and X-ray exposure time were recorded.

RESULTS

In the robot-assisted group, 25 cases with 100 percutaneous pedicle screws were included, and the excellent and good rate was 95%. In the electromagnetic navigation group, 31 cases with 124 screws were included, and the excellent rate was 97.6%. There was no statistical difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The registration time and the total time for the surgery also showed no statistical differences (P > 0.05). The main difference between the two groups was the guide-wire insertion time and the X-ray exposure time (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both electromagnetic navigation and robot-assisted are safe and efficient for percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Electromagnetic navigation system has obvious advantages over robot-assisted in terms of faster guide-wire placement and less X-ray exposure. Robot-assisted for percutaneous pedicle screw placement offers a preoperative planning system and a stable registration system, with obvious drawbacks of a strict training curve.

Is There a Difference in Screw Accuracy, Robot Time Per Screw, Robot Abandonment, and Radiation Exposure Between the Mazor X and the Renaissance? A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 1179 Robot-Assisted Screws

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective single-cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes/complications of 2 robotic systems for spine surgery.

METHODS

Adult patients (≥18-years-old) who underwent robot-assisted spine surgery from 2016-2019 were assessed. A propensity score matching (PSM) algorithm was used to match Mazor X to Renaissance cases. Preoperative CT scan for planning and an intraoperative O-arm for screw evaluation were preformed. Outcomes included screw accuracy, robot time/screw, robot abandonment, and radiation. Screw accuracy was measured using Vitrea Core software by 2 orthopedic surgeons. Screw breach was measured according to the Gertzbein/Robbins classification.

RESULTS

After PSA, a total of 65 patients (Renaissance: 22 vs. X: 43) were included. Patient/operative factors were similar between robot systems (P > .05). The pedicle screw accuracy was similar between robots (Renaissance: 1.1%% vs. X: 1.3%, P = .786); however, the S2AI screw breach rate was significantly lower for the X (Renaissance: 9.5% vs. X: 1.2%, P = .025). Robot time per screw was not statistically different (Renaissance: 4.6 minutes vs. X: 3.9 minutes, P = .246). The X was more reliable with an abandonment rate of 2.3% vs. Renaissance:22.7%, P = .007. Radiation exposure were not different between robot systems. Non-robot related complications including dural tear, loss of motor/sensory function, and blood transfusion were similar between robot systems.

CONCLUSION

This is the first comparative analyses of screw accuracy, robot time/screw, robot abandonment, and radiation exposure between the Mazor X and Renaissance systems. There are substantial improvements in the X robot, particularly in the perioperative planning processes, which likely contribute to the X's superiority in S2AI screw accuracy by nearly 8-fold and robot reliability by nearly 10-fold.

A Retrospective Analysis of Pedicle Screw Placement Accuracy Using the ExcelsiusGPS Robotic Guidance System: Case Series

BACKGROUND

Robotic guidance has become widespread in spine surgery. Although the intent is improved screw placement, further system-specific data are required to substantiate this intention for pedicle screws in spinal stabilization constructs.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of pedicle screws placed with the aid of a robot in a cohort of patients immediately after the adoption of the robot-assisted surgery technique.

METHODS

A retrospective, Institutional Review Board-approved study was performed on the first 100 patients at a single facility, who had undergone spinal surgeries with the use of robotic techniques. Pedicle screw accuracy was graded using the Gertzbein-Robbins Scale based on pedicle wall breach, with grade A representing 0 mm breach and successive grades increasing breach thresholds by 2 mm increments. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography scans were also used to assess offsets between the objective plan and true screw placements.

RESULTS

A total of 326 screws were analyzed among 72 patients with sufficient imaging data. Ages ranged from 21 to 84 years. The total accuracy rate based on the Gertzbein-Robbins Scale was 97.5%, and the rate for each grade is as follows: A, 82%; B, 15.5%; C, 1.5%; D, 1%; and E, 0. The average tip offset was 1.9 mm, the average tail offset was 2.0 mm, and the average angular offset was 2.6°.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted surgery allowed for accurate implantation of pedicle screws on immediate adoption of this technique. There were no complications attributable to the robotic technique, and no hardware revisions were required.

Reliability of YouTube videos on robotic spine surgery for patient education

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgical systems developed to improve spine surgery accuracy. Studies have found significant reductions in screw revisions and radiation exposure with robotic assistance compared with open surgery. YouTube is the largest online video platform for medical education. Therefore, there is a need for the continuous critical assessment of healthcare-related YouTube videos. Our objective is to assess the reliability of YouTube videos on robotic spine surgery for patient education.

METHODS

In April of 2022, YouTube was queried for the following keywords: "Robotic Spine Surgery". The "Relevance-Based Ranking" filter was applied, and the first 3 result pages were considered. Videos had to be uploaded by universities or hospitals and be in the English. Three independent healthcare personnel evaluated the videos' education quality using the DISCERN tool.

RESULTS

Our study found that 33 % of videos analyzed scored above a 3 on the DISCERN scoring scale (considered a ''good" video), with overall mean DISCERN score of 2.8 ± 1.3 (SD). The duration of videos was significantly different between the two groups (Good = 16 min ± 21 vs Unhelpful = 4 min ± 4, p = 0.01). In the helpful group, other characteristics were number of views (16331 ± 31308), likes (88 ± 168) and dislikes (5 ± 8). No statistically significant differences were observed compared to the unhelpful group: number of views (6515 ± 9074; P = 0.20), likes (39 ± 55; P = 0.21) and dislikes (3 ± 4; P = 0.33).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that YouTube videos on robotic spine surgery lack accuracy and have poor educational value. There should be increased institutional oversight to combat the spread of misinformation.

Robotics in neurosurgery: Current prevalence and future directions

Background:

The first instance of a robotic-assisted surgery occurred in neurosurgery; however, it is now more common in other fields such as urology and gynecology. This study aims to characterize the prevalence of robotic surgery among current neurosurgery programs as well as identify trends in clinical trials pertaining to robotic neurosurgery.

Methods:

Each institution’s website was analyzed for the mention of a robotic neurosurgery program and procedures. The future potential of robotics in neurosurgery was assessed by searching for current clinical trials pertaining to neurosurgical robotic surgery.

Results:

Of the top 100 programs, 30 offer robotic cranial and 40 offer robotic spinal surgery. No significant differences were observed with robotic surgical offerings between geographic regions in the US. Larger programs (faculty size 16 or over) had 20 of the 30 robotic cranial programs (66.6%), whereas 21 of the 40 robotic spinal programs (52.5%) were at larger programs. An initial search of clinical trials revealed 223 studies, of which only 13 pertained to robotic neurosurgery. Spinal fixation was the most common intervention (six studies), followed by Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS, two studies), Cochlear implants (two studies), laser ablation (LITT, one study), and endovascular embolization (one study). Most studies had industry sponsors (9/13 studies), while only five studies had hospital sponsors.

Conclusion:

Robotic neurosurgery is still in its infancy with less than half of the top programs offering robotic procedures. Future directions for robotics in neurosurgery appear to be focused on increased automation of stereotactic procedures such as DBS and LITT and robot-assisted spinal surgery.

Robotic Spine Surgery: Past, Present, and Future

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to present an overview of robotic spine surgery (RSS) including its history, applications, limitations, and future directions.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The first RSS platform received United States Food and Drug Administration approval in 2004. Since then, robotic-assisted placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws has been extensively studied. More recently, expanded applications of RSS have been introduced and evaluated.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Cochrane, OVID-MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed for articles relevant to robotic spine surgery. Institutional review board approval was not needed.

RESULTS

The placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws using RSS is safe and accurate and results in reduced radiation exposure for the surgeon and surgical team. Barriers to utilization exist including learning curve and large capital costs. Additional applications involving minimally invasive techniques, cervical pedicle screws, and deformity correction have emerged.

CONCLUSION

Interest in RSS continues to grow as the applications advance in parallel with image guidance systems and minimally invasive techniques.

IRB APPROVAL

N/A.

Negotiating for new technologies: guidelines for the procurement of assistive technologies in spinal surgery: a narrative review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This is a narrative review with the objective to discuss available assistive technologies for spinal surgery. Characteristics, costs, and compatibility of the different systems are summarized and recommendations made regarding acquiring these technologies. The availability of assistive technologies in spine surgery continues to evolve rapidly. The literature is lacking a collective summary of the available technologies and guidelines for acquisition. This is a narrative review which (I) presents an up-to-date summary of the currently available assistive technologies in spinal surgery; (II) makes comment on the utility of imaging, navigation, and robotics; (III) makes recommendations for the utility of the platform based on hospital size and (IV) discuss factors involved in negotiating for the purchase of these new technologies.

METHODS

We assemble the most up-to-date collection of description, characteristics and pricing of assistive technologies in spinal surgery. We compare and contrast these technologies and make recommendations regarding acquisition.

KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS

These technologies require a learning-curve for the surgeon and the operating room staff to understand how to use them efficiently. Surgeons need to be involved in the process of purchase decisions. Surgeons occupy a unique position in the health care infrastructure as their approach to care has significant ramifications on both the quality and cost of care. Surgeons should maintain conviction that their training and practice has allowed the use of these technologies to provide safer and more effective care for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Assistive technologies and prostheses for spinal fusion are evolving rapidly. This article serves as an encompassing reference to the current technologies. These technologies will play a significant role in the delivery of spinal health care in the future. All stakeholders stand to benefit from the increased value these technologies bring to patient care.

Comanipulation Robotic Platform for Spine Surgery with Exteroceptive Visual Coupling: Development and Experimentation

In this paper, a novel surgical robotic platform intended to assist surgeons in cervical spine surgery is presented. The purpose of this surgery is to treat cervical spine instabilities. The surgical procedure requires drilling into specific region of the vertebrae in order to attach spinal implants and ensure a normal spacing between each vertebra. In this context, the proposed robotic platform allows to control and restrict surgeon's movements to a specific drilling direction set by the surgeon. The current platform is composed of a collaborative robot with 7 DoF equipped with a drilling tool and directly comanipulated by the surgeon. A motion capture system, as an exteroceptive sensor device, provides the robot controller with the movement data of the vertebra to be drilled. Robot Operating System (ROS) framework is used to enable real-time communication between the collaborative robot and the visual exteroceptive device. In addition, an implemented compliance control program allows to enhance the safety aspect of the robotic platform. Indeed, the collaborative robot follow the patient's movements while constraining the tool movements to an optimal trajectory as well as a limited drilling depth selected by the surgeon. The robot's elbow movements are also restricted by exploiting the null-space in order to avoid collisions with other equipment or medical team members. Experimental drilling trials have been performed by an orthopedic surgeon to validate the usefulness and different functionalities of the developed robotic platform, and provide that a collaborative robot can comply with spine surgery procedure.

Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The optoelectronic camera source and data interpolation process serve as the foundation for navigational integrity in robotic-assisted surgical platforms. The current systematic review serves to provide a basis for the numerical disparity observed when comparing the intrinsic accuracy of optoelectronic cameras versus accuracy in the laboratory setting and clinical operative environments.

METHODS

Review of the PubMed and Cochrane Library research databases was performed. The exhaustive literature compilation obtained was then vetted to reduce redundancies and categorized into topics of intrinsic accuracy, registration accuracy, musculoskeletal kinematic platforms, and clinical operative platforms.

RESULTS

A total of 465 references were vetted and 137 comprise the basis for the current analysis. Regardless of application, the common denominators affecting overall optoelectronic accuracy are intrinsic accuracy, registration accuracy, and application accuracy. Intrinsic accuracy equaled or was less than 0.1 mm translation and 0.1 degrees rotation per fiducial. Controlled laboratory platforms reported 0.1 to 0.5 mm translation and 0.1 to 1.0 degrees rotation per array. Accuracy in robotic-assisted spinal surgery reported 1.5 to 6.0 mm translation and 1.5 to 5.0 degrees rotation when comparing planned to final implant position.

CONCLUSIONS

Navigational integrity and maintenance of fidelity of optoelectronic data is the cornerstone of robotic-assisted spinal surgery. Transitioning from controlled laboratory to clinical operative environments requires an increased number of steps in the optoelectronic kinematic chain and error potential. Diligence in planning, fiducial positioning, system registration and intra-operative workflow have the potential to improve accuracy and decrease disparity between planned and final implant position.

Collaborative spinal robot system for laminectomy: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVE

The application of robots in the field of pedicle screw placement has achieved great success. However, decompressive laminectomy, a step that is just as critical as pedicle screw placement, does not have a mature robot-assisted system. To address this lack, the authors designed a collaborative spine robot system to assist with laminectomy. In this study, they aimed to investigate the reliability of this novel collaborative spinal robot system and compare it with manual laminectomy (ML).

METHODS

Thirty in vitro porcine lumbar vertebral specimens were obtained as experimental bone specimens. Robot-assisted laminectomy (RAL) was performed on the left side of the lamina (n = 30) and ML was performed on the right side (n = 30). The time required for laminectomy on one side, whether the lamina was penetrated, and the remaining thickness of the lamina were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The time required for laminectomy on one side was longer in the RAL group than in the ML group (median 326 seconds [IQR 133 seconds] vs 108.5 seconds [IQR 43 seconds], p < 0.001). In the RAL group, complete lamina penetration occurred twice (6.7%), while in the ML group, it occurred 9 times (30%); the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.045). There was no statistically significant difference in the remaining lamina thickness between the two groups (median 1.035 mm [IQR 0.419 mm] vs 1.084 mm [IQR 0.383 mm], p = 0.842).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm the safety of this novel spinal robot system for laminectomy. However, its efficiency requires further improvement.

Robotic navigation in spine surgery: Where are we now and where are we going?

Robotic navigation is a new and rapidly emerging niche within minimally invasive spine surgery. The robotic arms-race began in 2004 and has resulted in no less than four major robotic surgical adjuncts. Current Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved applications of robotic navigation are limited to pedicle screw instrumentation, but new indications and experimental applications are rapidly emerging. As with any new technology, robotic navigation must be vetted for clinical efficacy, efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Given the rapid advancements made on a yearly basis, it is important to make frequent and objective assessments of the available technology. Thus, the authors seek to provide the most up-to-date review of the history, currently available technology, learning curve, novel applications, and cost effectiveness of today's available robotic systems as it relates to spine surgery.

Accuracy of Robotic-Assisted Spinal Surgery-Comparison to TJR Robotics, da Vinci Robotics, and Optoelectronic Laboratory Robotics

BACKGROUND

The optoelectronic camera source and data interpolation serve as the foundation for navigational integrity in the robotic-assisted surgical platform. The objective of the current systematic review serves to provide a basis for the numerical disparity that exists when comparing the intrinsic accuracy of optoelectronic cameras: accuracy observed in the laboratory setting versus accuracy in the clinical operative environment. It is postulated that there exists a greater number of connections in the optoelectronic kinematic chain when analyzing the clinical operative environment to the laboratory setting. This increase in data interpolation, coupled with intraoperative workflow challenges, reduces the degree of accuracy based on surgical application and to that observed in controlled musculoskeletal kinematic laboratory investigations.

METHODS

Review of the PubMed and Cochrane Library research databases was performed. The exhaustive literature compilation obtained was then vetted to reduce redundancies and categorized into topics of intrinsic optoelectronic accuracy, registration accuracy, musculoskeletal kinematic platforms, and clinical operative platforms.

RESULTS

A total of 147 references make up the basis for the current analysis. Regardless of application, the common denominators affecting overall optoelectronic accuracy are intrinsic accuracy, registration accuracy, and application accuracy. Intrinsic accuracy of optoelectronic tracking equaled or was less than 0.1 mm of translation and 0.1° of rotation per fiducial. Controlled laboratory platforms reported 0.1 to 0.5 mm of translation and 0.1°-1.0° of rotation per array. There is a huge falloff in clinical applications: accuracy in robotic-assisted spinal surgery reported 1.5 to 6.0 mm of translation and 1.5° to 5.0° of rotation when comparing planned to final implant position. Total Joint Robotics and da Vinci urologic robotics computed accuracy, as predicted, lies between these two extremes-1.02 mm for da Vinci and 2 mm for MAKO.

CONCLUSIONS

Navigational integrity and maintenance of fidelity of optoelectronic data is the cornerstone of robotic-assisted spinal surgery. Transitioning from controlled laboratory to clinical operative environments requires an increased number of steps in the optoelectronic kinematic chain and error potential. Diligence in planning, fiducial positioning, system registration, and intraoperative workflow have the potential to improve accuracy and decrease disparity between planned and final implant position. The key determining factors limiting navigation resolution accuracy are highlighted by this Cochrane research analysis.

Overview of Robotic Technology in Spine Surgery

As robotics in spine surgery has progressed over the past 2 decades, studies have shown mixed results on its clinical outcomes and economic impact. In this review, we highlight the evolution of robotic technology over the past 30 years, discussing early limitations and failures. We provide an overview of the history and evolution of currently available spinal robotic platforms and compare and contrast the available features of each. We conclude by summarizing the literature on robotic instrumentation accuracy in pedicle screw placement and clinical outcomes such as complication rates and briefly discuss the future of robotic spine surgery.

Is there a difference between navigated and non-navigated robot cohorts in robot-assisted spine surgery? A multicenter, propensity-matched analysis of 2,800 screws and 372 patients

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Robot-assisted spine surgery continues to rapidly develop as evidenced by the growing literature in recent years. In addition to demonstrating excellent pedicle screw accuracy, early studies have explored the impact of robot-assisted spine surgery on reducing radiation time, length of hospital stay, operative time, and perioperative complications in comparison to conventional freehand technique. Recently, the Mazor X Stealth Edition was introduced in 2018. This robotic system integrates Medtronic's Stealth navigation technology into the Mazor X platform, which was introduced in 2016. It is unclear what the impact of these advancements have made on clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes and complications between the most recent iterations of the Mazor Robot systems: Mazor X and Mazor X Stealth Edition.

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter cohort PATIENT SAMPLE: Among four different institutions, we included adult (≥18 years old) patients who underwent robot-assisted spine surgery with either the Mazor X (non-navigated robot) or Stealth (navigated robot) platforms.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes included robot time per screw, fluoroscopic radiation time, screw accuracy, robot abandonment, and clinical outcomes with a minimum 90 day follow up.

METHODS

A one-to-one propensity-score matching algorithm based on perioperative factors (e.g. demographics, comorbidities, primary diagnosis, open vs. percutaneous instrumentation, prior spine surgery, instrumented levels, pelvic fixation, interbody fusion, number of planned robot screws) was employed to control for the potential selection bias between the two robotic systems. Chi-square/fisher exact test and t-test/ANOVA were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

From a total of 646 patients, a total of 372 adult patients were included in this study (X: 186, Stealth: 186) after propensity score matching. The mean number of instrumented levels was 4.3. The mean number of planned robot screws was 7.8. Similar total operative time and robot time per screw occurred between cohorts (p>0.05). However, Stealth achieved significantly shorter fluoroscopic radiation time per screw (Stealth: 7.2 seconds vs. X: 10.4 seconds, p<.001) than X. The screw accuracy for both robots was excellent (Stealth: 99.6% vs. X: 99.1%, p=0.120). In addition, Stealth achieved a significantly lower robot abandonment rate (Stealth: 0% vs. X: 2.2%, p=0.044). Furthermore, a lower blood transfusion rate was observed for Stealth than X (Stealth: 4.3% vs. X: 10.8%, p=0.018). Non-robot related complications such as dura tear, motor/sensory deficits, return to the operating room during same admission, and length of stay was similar between robots (p>0.05). The 90-day complication rates were low and similar between robot cohorts (Stealth: 5.4% vs. X: 3.8%, p=0.456).

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter study, both robot systems achieved excellent screw accuracy and low robot time per screw. However, using Stealth led to significantly less fluoroscopic radiation time, lower robot abandonment rates, and reduced blood transfusion rates than Mazor X. Other factors including length of stay, and 90-day complications were similar.

Present and Future Spinal Robotic and Enabling Technologies

Enabling technologies include surgical planning software, computer-assisted navigation, intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) imaging, and robotic systems. Presently, these technologies are in various stages of refinement. Spinal robots in particular are currently limited to the positioning of an alignment guide for pedicle screw placement. Current generation spinal robots, therefore, play a more limited role in spinal surgery. In contrast to spinal robots, intraoperative imaging technology has been developed further, to a stage that allows accurate 3D spinal image acquisition that can be readily utilized for spinal navigation. The integration of these various technologies has the potential to maximize the safety, consistency, reliability, and efficacy of surgical procedures. To that end, the trend for manufacturers is to incorporate various enabling technologies into the spinal robotic systems. In the near-term, it is expected that integration of more advanced planning software and navigation will result in wider applicability and value. In the long-term, there are a variety of enabling technologies such as augmented reality that may be a component of spinal robots. This article reviews the features of currently available spinal robots and discusses the likely future advancements of robotic platforms in the near- and long-term.

Robotic-Navigated Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement Has Less Facet Joint Violation Than Fluoroscopy-Guided Percutaneous Screws

OBJECTIVE

To directly compare robotic-versus fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement in thoracolumbar spine trauma with a focus on clinically acceptable pedicle screw accuracy and facet joint violation (FJV).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review assessed 37 trauma patients undergoing percutaneous thoracic and/or lumbar fixation. Postoperative computed tomography images were reviewed by authors blinded to surgical technique who assessed pedicle screw trajectory accuracy and FJV frequency.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients underwent placement of 143 PPS with robotic assistance (robot group), compared with 20 patients receiving 149 PPS using fluoroscopy assistance (control group). Overall, the robot cohort demonstrated decreased FJV frequency of 2.8% versus 14.8% in controls (P = 0.0003). When further stratified by level of surgery (i.e., upper thoracic, lower thoracic, lumbar spine), the robot group had FJV frequencies of 0%, 3.2%, and 3.7%, respectively, compared with 17.7% (P = 0.0209), 14.3% (P = 0.0455), and 11.9% (P = 0.2340) in controls. The robot group had 84.6% clinically acceptable screw trajectories compared with 81.9% in controls (P = 0.6388). Within the upper thoracic, lower thoracic, and lumbar regions, the robot group had acceptable screw trajectories of 66.7%, 87.1%, and 90.7%, respectively, compared with 58.8% (P = 0.6261), 91.1% (P = 0.5655), and 97.6% (P = 0.2263) in controls.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in clinically acceptable screw trajectory accuracy between robotic versus fluoroscopy-guided PPS placement. However, the robot cohort demonstrated a statistically significantly decreased FJV overall and specifically within the thoracic spine region. Use of robotic technology may improve radiographic outcomes for a subset of patients or spine surgeries.

Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

OBJECTIVES

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have emerged as disruptive technologies with the potential to drastically affect clinical decision making in spine surgery. AI can enhance the delivery of spine care in several arenas: (1) preoperative patient workup, patient selection, and outcome prediction; (2) quality and reproducibility of spine research; (3) perioperative surgical assistance and data tracking optimization; and (4) intraoperative surgical performance. The purpose of this narrative review is to concisely assemble, analyze, and discuss current trends and applications of AI and ML in conventional and robotic-assisted spine surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive PubMed search of peer-reviewed articles that were published between 2006 and 2019 examining AI, ML, and robotics in spine surgery. Key findings were then compiled and summarized in this review.

RESULTS

The majority of the published AI literature in spine surgery has focused on predictive analytics and supervised image recognition for radiographic diagnosis. Several investigators have studied the use of AI/ML in the perioperative setting in small patient cohorts; pivotal trials are still pending.

CONCLUSIONS

Artificial intelligence has tremendous potential in revolutionizing comprehensive spine care. Evidence-based, predictive analytics can help surgeons improve preoperative patient selection, surgical indications, and individualized postoperative care. Robotic-assisted surgery, while still in early stages of development, has the potential to reduce surgeon fatigue and improve technical precision.

Robotics in spine surgery: A systematic review

Robotic systems to assist with pedicle screw placement have recently emerged in the field of spine surgery. Here, the authors systematically reviewed the literature for evidence of these robotic systems and their utility. Thirty-four studies that reported the use of spinal instrumentation with robotic assistance and met inclusion criteria were identified. The outcome measures gathered included: pedicle screw accuracy, indications for surgery, rates of conversion to an alternative surgical method, radiation exposure, and learning curve. In our search there were five different robotic systems identified. All studies reported accuracy and the most commonly used accuracy grading scale was the Gertzbein Robbins scale (GRS). Accuracy of clinically acceptable pedicle screws, defined as < 2 mm cortical breech, ranged from 80% to 100%. Many studies categorized indications for robotic surgery with the most common being degenerative entities. Some studies reported rates of conversion from robotic assistance to manual instrumentation due to many reasons, with robotic failure as the most common. Radiation exposure data revealed a majority of studies reported less radiation using robotic systems. Studies looking at a learning curve effect with surgeon use of robotic assistance were not consistent across the literature. Robotic systems for assistance in spine surgery have continued to improve and the accuracy of pedicle screw placement remains superior when compared to free-hand technique, however rates of manual conversion are significant. Currently, these systems are successfully employed in various pathological entities where trained spine surgeons can be safe and accurate regardless of robotic training.

The current state of navigation in robotic spine surgery

The advent and widespread adoption of pedicle screw instrumentation prompted the need for image guidance in spine surgery to improve accuracy and safety. Although the conventional method, fluoroscopy, is readily available and inexpensive, concerns regarding radiation exposure and the drive to provide better visual guidance spurred the development of computer-assisted navigation. Contemporaneously, a non-navigated robotic guidance platform was also introduced as a competing modality for pedicle screw placement. Although the robot could provide high precision trajectory guidance by restricting four of the six degrees of freedom (DOF), the lack of real-time depth control and high capital acquisition cost diminished its popularity, while computer-assisted navigation platforms became increasingly sophisticated and accepted. The recent integration of real-time 3D navigation with robotic platforms has resulted in a resurgence of interest in robotics in spine surgery with the recent introduction of numerous navigated robotic platforms. The currently available navigated robotic spine surgery platforms include the ROSA Spine Robot (Zimmer Biomet Robotics formerly Medtech SA, Montpellier, France), ExcelsiusGPS^® (Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA), Mazor X spine robot (Medtronic Navigation Louisville, CO; Medtronic Spine, Memphis, TN; formerly Mazor Robotics, Caesarea, Israel) and TiRobot (TINAVI Medical Technologies, Beijing, China). Here we provide an overview of these navigated spine robotic platforms, existing applications, and potential future avenues of implementation.

Comparison of Cranial Facet Joint Violation Rate and Four Other Clinical Indexes Between Robot-assisted and Freehand Pedicle Screw Placement in Spine Surgery: A Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Through meta-analysis, whether RA techniques are superior to conventional freehand (FH) techniques was determined in terms of cranial facet joint protection and four other clinical indexes, namely, the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, the number of surgical revision due to malposition, intraoperative radiation dose, and operative time.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cranial facet joint violation (FJV) is an important risk factor for adjacent segment degeneration. Some studies recommended the use of robot-assisted (RA) pedicle screw placement in reducing the rate of cranial FJV instead of conventional FH pedicle screw placement. However, the superiority of RA techniques to FH techniques remains controversial.

METHODS

A comprehensive search on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang was conducted for the selection of potential eligible literature. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3. The subgroup analyses of the violation of the cranial facet joint and the accuracy of pedicle screw placement were performed on the basis of robot type.

RESULT

Three randomized controlled trials, two prospective cohort study, and one retrospective cohort study consisting of 783 patients and 2694 cranial pedicle screws were included in the meta-analysis. RA pedicle screw placement was associated with significantly fewer cranial FJVs than FH screw placement. Subgroup analyses showed that the Renaissance (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.07-0.56) and TINAVI (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.09-0.38) robots under RA techniques were associated with significantly fewer cranial FJVs than FH techniques. Furthermore, the RA techniques showed more accurate pedicle screw placement and lower intraoperative radiation dose, equivalent number of surgical revision due to malposition, but longer operative time than the FH techniques.

CONCLUSION

The RA (Renaissance and TINAVI) techniques are superior to conventional FH techniques in terms of protecting the cranial facet joint. RA techniques are accurate and safe in clinical application.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Design of a robot-assisted system for transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar surgeries: study protocol

Background

Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar surgeries (PELS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis are growing in popularity. However, there are some problems in the establishment of the working channel and foraminoplasty such as nerve and blood vessel injuries, more radiation exposure, and steeper learning curve. Rapid technological advancements have allowed robotic technology to assist surgeons in improving the accuracy and safety of surgeries. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop a robot-assisted system for transforaminal PELS, which can provide navigation and foraminoplasty.

Methods

The robot-assisted system consists of three systems: preoperative planning system, navigation system, and foraminoplasty system. In the preoperative planning system, 3D visualization of the surgical segment and surrounding tissues are realized using the multimodal image fusion technique of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, and the working channel planning is carried out to reduce the risk for injury to vital blood vessels and nerves. In the navigation system, the robot can obtain visual perception ability from a visual receptor and automatically adjust the robotic platform and robot arm to the appropriate positions according to the patient’s position and preoperative plan. In addition, the robot can automatically register the surgical levels through intraoperative fluoroscopy. After that, the robot will provide navigation using the 6 degree-of-freedom (DOF) robot arm according to the preoperative planning system and guide the surgeon to complete the establishment of the working channel. In the foraminoplasty system, according to the foraminoplasty planning in the preoperative planning system, the robot performs foraminoplasty automatically using the high speed burr at the end of the robot arm. The system can provide real-time feedback on the working status of the bur through multi-mode sensors such as multidimensional force, position, and acceleration. Finally, a prototype of the system is constructed and performance tests are conducted.

Discussion

Our study will develop a robot-assisted system to perform transforaminal PELS, and this robot-assisted system can also be used for other percutaneous endoscopic spinal surgeries such as interlaminar PELS and percutaneous endoscopic cervical and thoracic surgeries through further research. The development of this robot-assisted system can be of great significance. First, the robot can improve the accuracy and efficiency of endoscopic spinal surgeries. In addition, it can avoid multiple intraoperative fluoroscopies, minimize exposure to both patients and the surgical staff, shorten the operative time, and improve the learning curve of beginners, which is beneficial to the popularization of percutaneous endoscopic spinal surgeries.

Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement and Four Other Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Guidance Technique versus Computer-Assisted Navigation in Thoracolumbar Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic guidance (RG) pedicle screw placement has been increasingly used to improve the rate of insertion accuracy. However, the superiority of the RG technique over computer-assisted navigation (CAN) remains debatable.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the Mazor RG technique is superior to CAN in terms of the rate of insertion accuracy and 4 other clinical indices, namely, intraoperative time, blood loss, complications and revision surgery caused by malposition.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang was conducted. We mainly aimed to evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement between the Mazor RG and CAN techniques. The secondary objectives were intraoperative time, blood loss, complications, and revision surgery caused by malposition. The meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software.

RESULTS

A randomized controlled trial and 5 comparative cohort studies consisting of 529 patients and 4081 pedicle screws were included in this meta-analysis. The RG technique has a significantly higher accuracy than CAN in terms of optimal (odds ratio [OR], 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-2.76; P < 0.01) and clinically acceptable (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.22-2.34; P = 0.002) pedicle screw insertions. Furthermore, the RG technique showed significantly less blood loss (mean difference, -42.49; 95% CI, -78.38 to -6.61; P = 0.02) than did the CAN technique but has equivalent intraoperative time (mean difference, 0.75; 95% CI, -5.89 to 7.40; P = 0.82), complications (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.32-1.33, P = 0.24), and revision surgery caused by malposition (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.15-1.43, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

The Mazor RG technique is superior to CAN concerning the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. Thus, the Mazor RG technique is accurate and safe in clinical application.

Role of Robotics in Improving Surgical Outcome in Spinal Pathologies

BACKGROUND

The desire to improve accuracy and safety and to favor minimally invasive techniques has given rise to spinal robotic surgery, which has seen a steady increase in utilization in the past 2 decades. However, spinal surgery encompasses a large spectrum of operative techniques, and robotic surgery currently remains confined to assistance with the trajectory of pedicle screw insertion, which has been shown to be accurate and safe based on class II and III evidence. The role of robotics in improving surgical outcomes in spinal pathologies is less clear, however.

METHODS

This comprehensive review of the literature addresses the role of robotics in surgical outcomes in spinal pathologies with a focus on the various meta-analysis and prospective randomized trials published within the past 10 years in the field.

RESULTS

It appears that robotic spinal surgery might be useful for increasing accuracy and safety in spinal instrumentation and allows for a reduction in surgical time and radiation exposure for the patient, medical staff, and operator.

CONCLUSION

Robotic assisted surgery may thus open the door to minimally invasive surgery with greater security and confidence. In addition, the use of robotics facilitates tireless repeated movements with higher precision compared with humans. Nevertheless, it is clear that further studies are now necessary to demonstrate the role of this modern tool in cost-effectiveness and in improving clinical outcomes, such as reoperation rates for screw malpositioning.