Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement under Regional Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Comparative evaluation of postoperative outcomes and expenditure between robotic and conventional single-level lumbar fusion surgery: a comprehensive analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we investigate the evolution of lumbar fusion surgery with robotic assistance, specifically focusing on the impact of robotic technology on pedicle screw placement and fixation. Utilizing data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) covering 2016 to 2019, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of postoperative outcomes and costs for single-level lumbar fusion surgery. Traditionally, freehand techniques for pedicle screw placement posed risks, leading to the development of robotic-assisted techniques with advantages such as reduced misplacement, increased precision, smaller incisions, and decreased surgeon fatigue. However, conflicting study results regarding the efficacy of robotic assistance in comparison to conventional techniques have prompted the need for a thorough evaluation. With a dataset of 461,965 patients, our aim is to provide insights into the impact of robotic assistance on patient care and healthcare resource utilization. Our primary goal is to contribute to the ongoing discourse on the efficacy of robotic technology in lumbar fusion procedures, offering meaningful insights for optimizing patient-centered care and healthcare resource allocation.

METHODS

This study employed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) spanning the years 2016 to 2019 from USA, 461,965 patients underwent one-level lumbar fusion surgery, with 5770 of them having the surgery with the assistance of robotic technology. The study focused primarily on one-level lumbar fusion surgery and excluded non-elective cases and those with prior surgeries. The analysis encompassed the identification of comorbidities, surgical etiologies, and complications using specific ICD-10 codes. Throughout the study, a constant comparison was made between robotic and non-robotic lumbar fusion procedures. Various statistical methods were applied, with a p value threshold of < 0.05, to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

Robotic-assisted lumbar fusion surgeries demonstrated a significant increase from 2016 to 2019, comprising 1.25% of cases. Both groups exhibited similar patient demographics, with minor differences in payment methods, favoring Medicare in non-robotic surgery and more private payer usage in robotic surgery. A comparison of comorbid conditions revealed differences in the prevalence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and sleep apnea diagnoses-In terms of hospitalization outcomes and costs, there was a slight shorter hospital stay of 3.06 days, compared to 3.13 days in non-robotic surgery, showcasing a statistically significant difference (p = 0.042). Robotic surgery has higher charges, with a mean charge of $154,673, whereas non-robotic surgery had a mean charge of $125,467 (p < 0.0001). Robotic surgery demonstrated lower rates of heart failure, acute coronary artery disease, pulmonary edema, venous thromboembolism, and traumatic spinal injury compared to non-robotic surgery, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Conversely, robotic surgery demonstrated increased post-surgery anemia and blood transfusion requirements compared to non-robotic patients (p < 0.0001). Renal disease prevalence was similar before surgery, but acute kidney injury was slightly higher in the robotic group post-surgery (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

This is the first big data study on this matter, our study showed that Robotic-assisted lumbar fusion surgery has fewer post-operative complications such as heart failure, acute coronary artery disease, pulmonary edema, venous thromboembolism, and traumatic spinal injury in comparison to conventional methods. Conversely, robotic surgery demonstrated increased post-surgery anemia, blood transfusion and acute kidney injury. Robotic surgery has higher charges compared to non-robotic surgery.

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.

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.

Positioning accuracy and facet joints violation after percutaneous pedicle screws placement with robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided technique: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Minimally invasive spine surgery became the gold standard for the treatment of many spinal diseases. Only a few comparative studies were performed regarding the superiority of robotic-assisted (RA) surgery over fluoroscopic guidance (FG) surgery during percutaneous pedicle screws placement. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy and potential advantages of RA compared with FG.

Material and Methods

This study is a systematic literature review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The review questions were formulated following the PICO scheme. Measured outcomes were presented using Forest plots. Heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed using the χ2 test, and the I2 statistic was utilized to estimate the proportion of total variation among the studies. A value exceeding 50% was considered indicative of substantial heterogeneity.

Results

Seven studies that met inclusion criteria were finally included in this meta-analysis. These seven studies include: 447 patients, 228 patients (931 screws) treated with robotic guide, and 219 patients (767 pedicle screws) using fluoroscopic guide, with a mean age of 55.2. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws were 94.3% in the robot-assisted group and 89% in the fluoroscopic guided group. The percentages of non-acceptable screws were 5.7% in the robot-assisted group and 11% in the fluoroscopic-guided group.

Discussion

Significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of radiographic and clinical outcomes, with the robotic-assisted pedicle screw group exhibiting longer operative times. Robot technology serves as a valuable tool for assisting surgeons in challenging scenarios such as anatomical variants or patients with spinal deformities, ensuring accurate screw placement.

Conclusion

The accuracy of pedicle screw placement with robotic technology is higher than with FG. In fact, the robotic approach allows significantly lower complication rates, fewer cases of violation of the proximal articular facet, less intraoperative exposure to radiation, even if it requires longer surgical times than the FG technique.

The Role and Future of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review

Many types of surgeries are changing from conventional to minimally invasive techniques. Techniques in spine surgery have also changed, with endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) becoming a major surgical technique. Although ESS has advantages such as less soft tissue dissection and normal structure damage, reduced blood loss, less epidural scarring, reduced hospital stay, and earlier functional recovery, it is not possible to replace all spine surgery techniques with ESS. ESS was first used for discectomy in the lumbar spine, but the range of ESS has expanded to cover the entire spine, including the cervical and thoracic spine. With improvements in ESS instruments (optics, endoscope, endoscopic drill and shaver, irrigation pump, and multiportal endoscopic), limitations of ESS have gradually decreased, and it is possible to apply ESS to more spine pathologies. ESS currently incorporates new technologies, such as navigation, augmented and virtual reality, robotics, and 3-dimentional and ultraresolution visualization, to innovate and improve outcomes. In this article, we review the history and current status of ESS, and discuss future goals and possibilities for ESS through comparisons with conventional surgical techniques.

Robotics in spine surgery: systematic review of literature

PURPOSE

Over 4.83 million spine surgery procedures are performed annually around the world. With the considerable caseload and the precision needed to achieve optimal spinal instrumentation, technical progress has helped to improve the technique's safety and accuracy with the development of peri-operative assistance tools. Contrary to other surgical applications already part of the standard of care, the development of robotics in spine surgery is still a novelty and is not widely available nor used. Robotics, especially when coupled with other guidance modalities such as navigation, seems to be a promising tool in our quest for accuracy, improving patient outcomes and reducing surgical complications. Robotics in spine surgery may also be for the surgeon a way to progress in terms of ergonomics, but also to respond to a growing concern among surgical teams to reduce radiation exposure.

METHOD

We present in this recent systematic review of the literature realized according to the PRISMA guidelines the place of robotics in spine surgery, reviewing the comparison to standard techniques, the current and future indications, the learning curve, the impact on radiation exposure, and the cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Seventy-six relevant original studies were identified and analyzed for the review.

CONCLUSION

Robotics has proved to be a safe help for spine surgery, both for the patient with a decrease of operating time and increase in pedicular screw accuracy, and for the surgical team with a decrease of radiation exposure. Medico-economic studies demonstrated that despite a high buying cost, the purchase of a robot dedicated for spine surgery is cost-effective resulting in lesser revision, lower infection, reduced length of stay, and shorter surgical procedure.

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.