Facet Violation With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement: Impact of 3D Navigation and Facet Orientation

Floor-Mounted Robotic Pedicle Screw Placement in Lumbar Spine Surgery: An Analysis of 1,050 Screws

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the usage of floor-mounted robot in minimally invasive lumbar fusion.

METHODS

Patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology using floor-mounted robot (ExcelsiusGPS) were included. Pedicle screw accuracy, proximal level violation rate, pedicle screw size, screw-related complications, and robot abandonment rate were analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine patients were included. Most surgeries were primary single-level fusion. Sixty-five percent of surgeries had intraoperative computed tomography (CT) workflow, 35% had preoperative CT workflow. Sixty-six percent were transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 16% were lateral, 8% were anterior, and 10% were a combined approach. A total of 1,050 screws were placed with robotic assistance (85% in prone position, 15% in lateral position). Postoperative CT scan was available for 80 patients (419 screws). Overall pedicle screw accuracy rate was 96.4% (prone, 96.7%; lateral, 94.2%; primary, 96.7%; revision, 95.3%). Overall poor screw placement rate was 2.8% (prone, 2.7%; lateral, 3.8%; primary, 2.7%; revision, 3.5%). Overall proximal facet and endplate violation rates were 0.4% and 0.9%. Average diameter and length of pedicle screws were 7.1 mm and 47.7 mm. Screw revision had to be done for 1 screw (0.1%). Use of the robot had to be aborted in 2 cases (0.8%).

CONCLUSION

Usage of floor-mounted robotics for the placement of lumbar pedicle screws leads to excellent accuracy, large screw size, and negligible screw-related complications. It does so for screw placement in prone/lateral position and primary/revision surgery alike with negligible robot abandonment rates.

Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding.

PURPOSE

To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up.

OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy).

CONCLUSIONS

These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

Robotics Reduces Radiation Exposure in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Compared With Navigation

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To compare robotics and navigation for minimally invasive elective lumbar fusion in terms of radiation exposure and time demand.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although various studies have been conducted to demonstrate the benefits of both navigation and robotics over fluoroscopy in terms of radiation exposure, literature is lacking in studies comparing robotics versus navigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective one-level or two-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by a single surgeon using navigation (Stryker SpineMask) or robotics (ExcelsiusGPS) were included (navigation 2017-2019, robotics 2019-2021, resulting in prospective cohorts of consecutive patients for each modality). All surgeries had the intraoperative computed tomography workflow. The two cohorts were compared for radiation exposure [fluoroscopy time and radiation dose: image capture, surgical procedure, and overall) and time demand (time for setup and image capture, operative time, and total operating room (OR) time].

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients (robotics 111, navigation 133) were included. The two cohorts were similar in terms of baseline demographics, primary/revision surgeries, and fusion levels. For one-level TLIF, total fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, and % of radiation for surgical procedure were significantly less with robotics compared with navigation (20 vs. 25 s, P <0.001; 38 vs. 42 mGy, P =0.05; 58% vs. 65%, P =0.021). Although time for setup and image capture was significantly less with robotics (22 vs. 25 min, P <0.001) and operative time was significantly greater with robotics (103 vs. 93 min, P <0.001), there was no significant difference in the total OR time (145 vs. 141 min, P =0.25). Similar findings were seen for two-level TLIF as well.

CONCLUSION

Robotics for minimally invasive TLIF, compared with navigation, leads to a significant reduction in radiation exposure both to the surgeon and patient, with no significant difference in the total OR time.

Multimodal Applications of 3D-Navigation in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Impacts on Precision, Accuracy, Complications, and Radiation Exposure

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional (3D)-navigation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is an evolving procedure. It is used not only for its accuracy of pedicle screw fixation but also for other major steps in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Multimodal outcomes of this procedure are very limited in the literature. The purpose of this study was to examine the application of 3D-navigation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).

METHODS

Patients who underwent single-level MI-TLIF using 3D-navigation between January 2017 and July 2019 were evaluated for navigation setting time, radiation exposure, volume of nucleus pulposus excised, cage placement, accuracy of pedicle screw placement, and cranial facet-joint violation.

RESULTS

One hundred and two patients with a mean age of 60.2 years met the inclusion criteria. The mean presetting time of navigation was 46.65 ± 9.45 minutes. Radiation exposure, fluoroscopy use, and fluoroscopy time were 15.54 ± 0.65 mGy, 4.43 ± 0.87 Gy.cm², and 97.6 ± 11.67 seconds, respectively. The mean amount of nucleus pulposus excised from all quadrants was quantified. The cage was centrally placed in 87 patients, with 95.4% showing a Grade 0 pedicle breach and 94.6% showing Grade 0 cranial facet-joint violation.

CONCLUSION

Registration and setting up 3D-navigation takes additional time. The amount of exposure to the patient is much less compared to routine computed tomography, and, importantly, the operating team is protected from radiation. Navigated MI-TLIF has high rates of accuracy with regard to placement of percutaneous pedicle screws and cages with the added advantage of protection of the cranial facet-joint.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5

Does robot-assisted navigation influence pedicle screw selection and accuracy in minimally invasive spine surgery?

OBJECTIVE

The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement has increased with the advent of robotic and surgical navigation technologies. However, the effect of robotic intraoperative screw size and trajectory templating remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare pedicle screw sizes and accuracy of placement using robotic navigation (RN) versus skin-based intraoperative navigation (ION) alone in minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a single-institution registry of spine procedures performed over a 4-year period. Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level primary or revision minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw placement, via either robotic assistance or surgical navigation alone, were included. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Pedicle screw type, quantity, length, diameter, and the presence of endplate breach or facet joint violation were assessed. Statistical analysis using the Student t-test and chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences in pedicle screw sizes and the accuracy of placement between both groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 222 patients were included, of whom 92 underwent RN and 130 underwent ION MIS-TLIF. A total of 403 and 534 pedicle screws were placed with RN and ION, respectively. The mean screw diameters were 7.25 ± 0.81 mm and 6.72 ± 0.49 mm (p < 0.001) for the RN and ION groups, respectively. The mean screw length was 48.4 ± 4.48 mm in the RN group and 45.6 ± 3.46 mm in the ION group (p < 0.001). The rates of “ideal” pedicle screws in the RN and ION groups were comparable at 88.5% and 88.4% (p = 0.969), respectively. The overall screw placement was also similar. The RN cohort had 63.7% screws rated as good and 31.4% as acceptable, while 66.1% of ION-placed screws had good placement and 28.7% had acceptable placement (p = 0.661 and p = 0.595, respectively). There was a significant reduction in high-grade breaches in the RN group (0%, n = 0) compared with the ION group (1.2%, n = 17, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that robotic assistance allows for placement of screws with greater screw diameter and length compared with surgical navigation alone, although with similarly high accuracy. These findings have implied that robotic platforms may allow for safe placement of the “optimal screw,” maximizing construct stability and, thus, the ability to obtain a successful fusion.