Accuracy and Safety of Robot-Assisted versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Posterior C1 Lateral Mass and C2 Pedicle Screw Internal Fixation for Atlantoaxial Dislocation: A Preliminary Study

Accuracy and clinical characteristics of robot-assisted cervical spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy and feasibility of robot-assisted cervical screw placement and factors that may affect the accuracy.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was made on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang Med for the selection of potential eligible literature. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of the relative risk (RR) or standardized mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses of the accuracy of screw placement at different cervical segments and with different screw placement approaches were performed. A comparison was made between robotic navigation and conventional freehand cervical screw placement.

RESULTS

Six comparative cohort studies and five case series studies with 337 patients and 1342 cervical screws were included in this study. The perfect accuracy was 86% (95% CI, 82-89%) and the clinically acceptable rate was 98% (95% CI, 95-99%) in robot-assisted cervical screw placement. The perfect accuracy of robot-assisted C1 lateral mass screw placement was the highest (96%), followed by C6-7 pedicle screw placement (93%) and C2 pedicle screw placement (86%), and the lowest was C3-5 pedicle screw placement (75%). The open approach had a higher perfect accuracy than the percutaneous/intermuscular approach (91% vs 83%). Compared with conventional freehand cervical screw placement, robot-assisted cervical screw placement had a higher accuracy, a lower incidence of perioperative complications, and less intraoperative blood loss.

CONCLUSION

With good collaboration between the operator and the robot, robot-assisted cervical screw placement is accurate and feasible. Robot-assisted cervical screw placement has a promising prospect.

Comparison of the S8 navigation system and the TINAVI orthopaedic robot in the treatment of upper cervical instability

The objective is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of the S8 navigation system and the Tinavi orthopaedic surgery robot in the treatment of upper cervical instability. The research methods adopted are as follows. The clinical data of patients with upper cervical instability who underwent surgery from May 2021 to December 2021 were analysed retrospectively. Patients were divided into a navigation group (assisted by the S8 navigation system) and a tinavi group (assisted by the Tinavi robot) according to the auxiliary system used. Computed tomography and digital radiography were performed after the operation. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement was evaluated using the criteria put forward by Rampersaud. Degree of facet joint violation, visual analogue scale score, neck disability index and Japanese orthopaedic association score were recorded and assessed during follow-up examinations in both groups. Record two groups of surgery-related indicators. Record the complications of the two groups. A total of 50 patients were included. 21 patients in the navigation group and 29 in the tinavi group. The results of the study are as follows. The average follow-up time was 12.1 months. There was no significant difference in nail placement accuracy between the navigation and tinavi groups (P > 0.05); however, the navigation group had a significantly higher rate of facet joint violation than that of tinavi group (P < 0.05), and the screws were placed closer to the anterior cortex (P < 0.05). Significantly more intraoperative fluoroscopies were performed in the tinavi group than in the navigation group, and the operation time was significantly longer in the tinavi group than in the navigation group (P < 0.05). The time of single nail implantation, intraoperative blood loss and incision length in navigation group were significantly longer than those in tinavi group. There were no statistically significant differences in other indicators between the two groups (P > 0.05). We come to the following conclusion. The Stealth Station S8 navigation system (Medtronic, USA), which also uses an optical tracking system, and the Tinavi Orthopedic robot have shown the same high accuracy and satisfactory clinical results in the treatment of upper cervical instability. Although the S8 navigation system still has many limitations, it still has good application prospects and is a new tool for spine surgery.

Safety and Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Cervical Screw Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted (RA) cervical screw placement with conventional freehand (FH) technique.

METHODS

Computer-based searches were conducted on various databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, the China Biology Medicine, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting the use of RA techniques for cervical screw placement and providing data on safety and accuracy outcomes. Primary outcome indicators focused on the accuracy of screw placement, while secondary outcome indicators included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, and radiation dose. Data from eligible studies were extracted and synthesized using a forest plot analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 312 patients (1233 screws) from 6 studies were included, with 148 patients (47.4% with 567 screws) in the RA group. Perfect screw accuracy, as categorized by Gertzbein-Robbins grade A, was significantly superior with RA surgery compared to FH technique. RA screw implantation significantly reduced complication rates, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospitalization, and radiation dose compared to the conventional FH group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in surgery time between the RA and FH groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RA surgery significantly improves the accuracy of cervical screw insertion and offers potential advantages in terms of reduced complications and blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and decreased radiation exposure. However, the impact on operative time remains uncertain. Further high-quality studies, including large-scale randomized controlled trials, are needed to strengthen the evidence base.

Clinical application of spinal robot in cervical spine surgery: safety and accuracy of posterior pedicle screw placement in comparison with conventional freehand methods

The novel robot-assisted (RA) technique has been utilized increasingly to improve the accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement. Although the clinical application of the RA technique has been investigated in several case series and comparative studies, the superiority and safety of RA over conventional freehand (FH) methods remain controversial. Meanwhile, the intra-pedicular accuracy of the two methods has not been compared for patients with cervical traumatic conditions. This study aimed to compare the rate and risk factors of intra-pedicular accuracy of RA versus the conventional FH approach for posterior pedicle screw placement in cervical traumatic diseases. A total of 52 patients with cervical traumatic diseases who received cervical screw placement using RA (26 patients) and FH (26 patients) techniques were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was the intra-pedicular accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement according to the Gertzbin-Robbins scale. Secondary outcome parameters included surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospital stay, and complications. Moreover, the risk factors that possibly affected intra-pedicular accuracy were assessed using univariate analyses. Out of 52 screws inserted using the RA method, 43 screws (82.7%) were classified as grade A, with the remaining 7 (13.5%) and 2 (3.8%) screws classified as grades B and C. In the FH cohort, 60.8% of the 79 screws were graded A, with the remaining screws graded B (21, 26.6%), C (8, 10.1%), and D (2, 2.5%). The RA technique showed a significantly higher rate of optimal intra-pedicular accuracy than the FH method (P = 0.008), but there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinically acceptable accuracy (P = 0.161). Besides, the RA technique showed remarkably longer surgery time, less postoperative drainage, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and equivalent intraoperative blood loss and complications than the FH technique. Furthermore, the univariate analyses showed that severe obliquity of the lateral atlantoaxial joint in the coronal plane (P = 0.003) and shorter width of the lateral mass at the inferior margin of the posterior arch (P = 0.014) were risk factors related to the inaccuracy of C1 screw placement. The diagnosis of HRVA (P < 0.001), severe obliquity of the lateral atlantoaxial joint in the coronal plane (P < 0.001), short pedicle width (P < 0.001), and short pedicle height (P < 0.001) were risk factors related to the inaccuracy of C2 screw placement. RA cervical pedicle screw placement was associated with a higher rate of optimal intra-pedicular accuracy to the FH technique for patients with cervical traumatic conditions. The severe obliquity of the lateral atlantoaxial joint in the coronal plane independently contributed to high rates of the inaccuracy of C1 and C2 screw placements. RA pedicle screw placement is safe and useful for cervical traumatic surgery.

Robotics in Cervical Spine Surgery: Feasibility and Safety of Posterior Screw Placement

Objective: Robot-assisted (RA) techniques have been widely investigated in thoracolumbar spine surgery. However, the application of RA methods on cervical spine surgery is rare due to the complex morphology of cervical vertebrae and catastrophic complications. Thus, the feasibility and safety of RA cervical screw placement remain controversial. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RA screw placement on cervical spine surgery.Methods: A comprehensive search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase Database, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, and Wanfang Database was performed to select potential eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparative cohort studies, and case series reporting the accuracy of cervical screw placement were included. The Cochrane risk of bias criteria and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria were utilized to rate the risk of bias of the included literatures. The primary outcome was the rate of cervical screw placement accuracy with robotic guidance; subgroup analyses based on the screw type and insertion segments were also performed.Results: One RCT, 3 comparative cohort studies, and 3 case series consisting of 160 patients and 719 cervical screws were included in this meta-analysis. The combined outcomes indicated that the rates of optimal and clinically acceptable cervical screw placement accuracy under robotic guidance were 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.1%–91.4%; p = 0.073; I² = 47.941%) and 98.4% (95% CI, 96.8%–99.5%; p = 0.167; I² = 35.954%). The subgroup analyses showed that the rate of optimal pedicle screw placement accuracy was 88.2% (95% CI, 83.1%–92.6%; p = 0.057; I² = 53.305%); the rates of optimal screw placement accuracy on C1, C2, and subaxial segments were 96.2% (95% CI, 80.5%–100.0%; p = 0.167; I² = 44.134X%), 89.7% (95% CI, 80.6%–96.6%; p = 0.370; I² = 0.000X%), and 82.6% (95% CI, 70.9%–91.9%; p = 0.057; I² = 65.127X%;), respectively.Conclusion: RA techniques were associated with high rates of optimal and clinically acceptable screw positions. RA cervical screw placement is accurate, safe, and feasible in cervical spine surgery with promising clinical potential.

Posterior atlantoaxial internal fixation using Harms technique assisted by 3D-based navigation robot for treatment of atlantoaxial instability

Background

To evaluate the accuracy of screw placement using the TiRobot surgical robot in the Harms procedure and to assess the clinical outcomes of this technique.

Methods

This retrospective study included 21 patients with atlantoaxial instability treated by posterior atlantoaxial internal fixation (Harms procedure) using the TiRobot surgical robot between March 2016 and June 2021. The precision of screw placement, perioperative parameters and clinical outcomes were recorded. Screw placement was assessed based on intraoperative guiding pin accuracy measurements on intraoperative C-arm cone-beam computed tomography (CT) images using overlay technology and the incidence of screw encroachment identified on CT images.

Results

Among the 21 patients, the mean age was 44.8 years, and the causes of atlantoaxial instability were os odontoideum (n = 11), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 2), unknown pathogenesis (n = 3), and type II odontoid fracture (n = 5). A total of 82 screws were inserted with robotic assistance. From intraoperative guiding pin accuracy measurements, the average translational and angular deviations were 1.52 ± 0.35 mm (range 1.14–2.25 mm) and 2.25° ± 0.45° (range 1.73°–3.20º), respectively. Screw placement was graded as A for 80.5% of screws, B for 15.9%, and C for 3.7%. No complications related to screw misplacement were observed. After the 1-year follow-up, all patients with a neurological deficit experienced neurological improvement based on Nurick Myelopathy Scale scores, and all patients with preoperative neck pain reported improvement based on Visual Analog Scale scores.

Conclusions

Posterior atlantoaxial internal fixation using the Harms technique assisted by a 3D-based navigation robot is safe, accurate, and effective for treating atlantoaxial instability.