Lumbar Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Breach Rates: A Comparison of Robotic Navigation Platform Versus Conventional Techniques

A comparison of ultrasound volume navigation, O-arm navigation, and X-ray guidance for screw placement in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the differences between Ultrasound Volume Navigation (UVN), O-arm Navigation, and conventional X-ray fluoroscopy-guided screw placement in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgeries.

METHODS

A total of 90 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF due to lumbar disc herniation from January 2022 to January 2023 were randomly assigned to the UVN group, O-arm group, and X-ray group. UVN, O-arm navigation, and X-ray guidance were used for screw placement in the respective groups, while the remaining surgical procedures followed routine MIS-TLIF protocols. Intraoperative data including average single screw placement time, total radiation dose, and average effective radiation dose per screw were recorded and calculated. On the 10th day after surgery, postoperative X-ray and CT examinations were conducted to assess screw placement accuracy and facet joint violation.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in general characteristics among the three groups, ensuring comparability. Firstly, the average single screw placement time in the O-arm group was significantly shorter than that in the UVN group and X-ray group (P<0.05). Secondly, in terms of total radiation dose during surgery, for single-level MIS-TLIF, the O-arm group had a significantly higher radiation dose compared to the UVN group and X-ray group (P<0.05). However, for multi-level MIS-TLIF, the X-ray group had a significantly higher radiation dose than the O-arm group and UVN group (P<0.05). In terms of average single screw radiation dose, the O-arm group and X-ray group were similar (P>0.05), while the UVN group was significantly lower than the other two groups (P<0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were found in screw placement assessment grades among the three groups (P>0.05). However, in terms of facet joint violation rate, the UVN group (10.3%) and O-arm group (10.7%) showed no significant difference (P>0.05), while the X-ray group (26.7%) was significantly higher than both groups (P<0.05). Moreover, in the UVN group, there were significant correlations between average single screw placement time and placement grade with BMI index (r = 0.637, P<0.05; r = 0.504, P<0.05), while no similar significant correlations were found in the O-arm and X-ray groups.

CONCLUSION

UVN-guided screw placement in MIS-TLIF surgeries demonstrates comparable efficiency, visualization, and accuracy to O-arm navigation, while significantly reducing radiation exposure compared to both O-arm navigation and X-ray guidance. However, UVN may be influenced by factors like obesity, limiting its application.

Comparative surgical outcomes of navigated vs non-navigated posterior spinal fusions in ankylosing spondylitis patients

INTRODUCTION

Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) patients with acute spinal fractures represent a challenge for practicing spine surgeons due to difficult operative anatomy and susceptibility to complications.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does intraoperative CT-navigation improve outcomes in patients with ankylosing spondylitis undergoing surgery?

METHODS

A retrospective review was carried out at our centre from 05/2016-06/2021 to identify AS patients presenting with a traumatic spinal fracture, managed surgically with posterior spinal fusion (PSF). Cohorts were categorised and compared for outcomes based on those who underwent PSF with intraoperative CT-navigation versus those surgically managed with traditional intraoperative fluoroscopy.

RESULTS

37 AS patients were identified. 29/37 (78.4%) underwent PSF. Intraoperative navigation was used in 14 (48.3%) cases. Mean age of the entire cohort was 67.6 years. No difference existed between the navigated and non-navigated groups for mean levels fused (5.35 vs 5.07; p ​= ​0.31), length of operation (217.9mins vs 175.3mins; p ​= ​0.07), overall length-of-stay (12 days vs 21.9 days; p ​= ​0.16), patients requiring HDU (3/14 vs 5/15; p ​= ​0.09) or ICU (5/14 vs 9/15; p ​= ​0.10), postoperative neurological improvement (1/14 vs 1/15; p ​= ​0.48) or deterioration (1/14 vs 0/15; p ​= ​0.15), intraoperative complications (2/14 vs 3/15; p ​= ​0.34), postoperative complications 4/14 vs 4/15; p ​= ​0.46), revision surgeries (3/14 vs 1/15; p ​= ​0.16) and 30-day mortality (0/14 vs 0/15).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study that compares surgical outcomes of navigated vs non-navigated PSFs for AS patients with an acute spinal fracture. Although limited by its retrospective design and sample size, this study highlights the non-inferiority of intraoperative navigation as a surgical aid in a challenging cohort.

Evaluating the safe zone for lumbar pedicle screws: are midline crossing screws indicative of pedicle breach?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Pedicle screw breach (PSB) is not uncommon following lumbar instrumentation, and in some instances, it may lead to vascular and/or neurologic complications. Previous literature suggested that screws crossing the vertebral midline on an anterior-posterior (AP) radiograph (or midsagittal on CT) are concerning for medial pedicle breach.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary aim was to map out the safe zones (SZ) of bilateral pedicle instrumentation and their relationship at each lumbar vertebral level. Our secondary aim was to evaluate the presence of SZs' intersection at each lumbar level, denoting safe midline pedicle screw crossing not otherwise associated with medial pedicle breach.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective Anatomical Study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adult patients in the from "The Cancer Imaging Archive" (TCIA) database who have not had thoraco-lumbo-sacral fusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Physiologic measures obtained through 3D analysis of CT images and virtual pedicle screws.

METHOD

CT scans of 51 patients were randomly selected from "The Cancer Imaging Archive" (TCIA) online database for analysis. The Sectra 3D Spine software was used to create 3D renderings, place virtual screws, and make measurements. At each lumbar vertebra, the right and left pedicle corridors were mapped. At each pedicle, two screw positions were templated, the "medial limit screw" (MLS) and the "lateral limit screw" (LLS). Each limit screw was the most extreme position that the screw could exist in without causing a medial or lateral breach. The safe zone was defined as the zone between MLS and LLS. Measurements were taken for each level (between L1 and L5) and side (Left, Right).

RESULTS

A total of 253 lumbar vertebrae from 51 patients (mean age 53.1, 56.9% male) were included. Two vertebrae from two patients were removed for poor image quality. Out of the 506 screw positions analyzed in our study, 97.4% had overlapping SZ and crossed the midplane without medial pedicle breach. The significant factors (p<.01) for safe midplane-crossing screws included: the screw length (L1-L5); the laterality of the screw entry point (L1-L4); and the pedicle diameter (L2 and L5).

CONCLUSIONS

A midline crossing pedicle screw on a lumbar AP radiograph is not necessarily indicative of a medial pedicle screw breach. Anatomical (ie, larger pedicle diameter) and technical (ie, longer screws, and lateral entry points) factors allow for safety zone intersections and indicate safe midline crossing by pedicle screws.

An Integrated 3-Dimentional Navigation System Increases the Accuracy, Efficiency, and Safety of Percutaneous Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw Placement in Minimally Invasive Approaches: A Randomized Cadaveric Study

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare a novel, integrated 3D navigational system (NAV) and conventional fluoroscopy in the accuracy, efficiency, and radiation exposure of thoracolumbar percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement.

METHODS

Twelve skeletally mature cadaveric specimens were obtained for twelve individual surgeons. Each participant placed bilateral PS at 11 segments, from T8 to S1. Prior to insertion, surgeons were randomized to the sequence of techniques and the side (left or right). Following placement, a CT scan of the spine was obtained for each cadaver, and an independent reviewer assessed the accuracy of screw placement using the Gertzbein grading system. Outcome metrics of interest included a comparison of breach incidence/severity, screw placement time, total procedure time, and radiation exposure between the techniques. Bivariate statistics were employed to compare outcomes at each level.

RESULTS

A total of 262 screws (131 using each technique) were placed. The incidence of cortical breaches was significantly lower with NAV compared to FG (9% vs 18%; P = .048). Of breaches with NAV, 25% were graded as moderate or severe compared to 39% in the FG subgroup (P = .034). Median time for screw placement was significantly lower with NAV (2.7 vs 4.1 min/screw; P = .012), exclusive of registration time. Cumulative radiation exposure to the surgeon was significantly lower for NAV-guided placement (9.4 vs 134 μGy, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of NAV significantly decreased the incidence of cortical breaches, the severity of screw breeches, screw placement time, and radiation exposure to the surgeon when compared to traditional FG.

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.

Comparison of accuracy and safety between second-generation TiRobot-assisted and free-hand thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement

Background

Robot-assisted spine surgery aims to improve the accuracy of screw placement. We compared the accuracy and safety between a novel robot and free hand in thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement.

Methods

Eighty patients scheduled to undergo robot-assisted (40 patients) and free-hand (40 patients) pedicle screw placement were included. The patients’ demographic characteristics, radiographic accuracy, and perioperative outcomes were compared. The accuracy of screw placement was based on cortical violation and screw deviation. Safety outcomes mainly included operative time, blood loss, revision, and complications.

Results

A total of 178 and 172 screws were placed in the robot-assisted and free-hand groups, respectively. The rate of perfect screw position (grade A) was higher in the robot-assisted group than in the free-hand group (91.0% vs. 75.6%; P < 0.001). The rate of clinically acceptable screw position (grades A and B) was also higher in the robot-assisted group than in the free-hand group (99.4% vs. 90.1%; P < 0.001). The robot-assisted group had significantly lower screw deviation than the free-hand group [1.46 (0.94, 1.95) mm vs. 2.48 (1.09, 3.74) mm, P < 0.001]. There was no robot abandonment in the robot-assisted group. No revision was required in any of the groups.

Conclusions

Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is more accurate than free-hand placement. The second-generation TiRobot–assisted thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement is an accurate and safe procedure.

Trial registration retrospectively registered

What Is the Comparison in Robot Time per Screw, Radiation Exposure, Robot Abandonment, Screw Accuracy, and Clinical Outcomes Between Percutaneous and Open Robot-Assisted Short Lumbar Fusion?: A Multicenter, Propensity-Matched Analysis of 310 Patients

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the robot time/screw, radiation exposure, robot abandonment, screw accuracy, and 90-day outcomes between robot-assisted percutaneous and robot-assisted open approach for short lumbar fusion (1- and 2-level).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is conflicting literature on the superiority of robot-assisted minimally invasive spine surgery to open techniques. A large, multicenter study is needed to further elucidate the outcomes and complications between these two approaches.

METHODS

We included adult patients (≥18 yrs old) who underwent robot-assisted short lumbar fusion surgery from 2015 to 2019 at four independent institutions. A propensity score matching algorithm was employed to control for the potential selection bias between percutaneous and open surgery. The minimum follow-up was 90 days after the index surgery.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 310 patients remained. The mean (standard deviation) Charlson comorbidity index was 1.6 (1.5) and 53% of patients were female. The most common diagnoses included high-grade spondylolisthesis (grade >2) (48%), degenerative disc disease (22%), and spinal stenosis (25%), and the mean number of instrumented levels was 1.5(0.5). The operative time was longer in the open (198 min) versus the percutaneous group (167 min, P value = 0.007). However, the robot time/screw was similar between cohorts (P value > 0.05). The fluoroscopy time/ screw for percutaneous (14.4 s) was longer than the open group (10.1 s, P value = 0.021). The rates for screw exchange and robot abandonment were similar between groups (P value > 0.05). The estimated blood loss (open: 146 mL vs. percutaneous: 61.3 mL, P value < 0.001) and transfusion rate (open: 3.9% vs. percutaneous: 0%, P value = 0.013) were greater for the open group. The 90-day complication rate and mean length of stay were not different between cohorts (P value > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous robot-assisted spine surgery may increase radiation exposure, but can achieve a shorter operative time and lower risk for intraoperative blood loss for short-lumbar fusion. Percutaneous approaches do not appear to have an advantage for other short-term postoperative outcomes. Future multicenter studies on longer fusion surgeries and the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes are needed.Level of Evidence: 3.

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.

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.