Overview of Robotic Technology in Spine Surgery

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.

Comparison of Cervical Pedicle Screw Placement Accuracy With Robotic Guidance System Versus Image Guidance System Using Propensity Score Matching

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy of cervical pedicle screw (CPS) placement using a robotic guidance system (RGS) with that of using an image guidance system (IGS; navigation system) through propensity score matching.

BACKGROUND

The RGS may provide accurate CPS placement, which may outperform IGS. However, no study has directly compared the accuracy of CPS placement with the RGS to that with the IGS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who had undergone cervical fusion surgery using CPS with the RGS or IGS. To adjust for potential confounders (patient demographic characteristics, disease etiology, and registration material), propensity score matching was performed, creating robotic guidance (RG) and matched image guidance (IG) groups. The accuracy of CPS placement from C2 to C6, where the vertebral artery runs, was evaluated on postoperative computed tomography images according to the Neo classification (grade 0 to grade 3). Furthermore, the intraoperative CPS revisions and related complications were examined.

RESULTS

Using propensity score matching, 22 patients were included in the RG and matched groups each, and a total of 95 and 105 CPSs, respectively, were included in the analysis. In both the axial and sagittal planes, the clinically acceptable rate (grades 0 + 1) of CPS placement did not differ between the RG and matched IG groups (97.9% vs 94.3% and 95.8% vs 96.2%, respectively). The incidence of CPS revision was similar between the groups (2.1% vs 2.9%), and no CPS-related complications were documented. Meanwhile, the incidence of lateral breach (grades 1 + 2 + 3) was significantly lower in the RG group than in the matched IG group (1.1% vs 7.7%, P= 0.037).

CONCLUSION

The RGS and IGS can equally aid in accurate and safe CPS placement in clinical settings. Nonetheless, RGS can further reduce the lateral breach, compared with IGS.

Perception of Robotics and Navigation by Spine Fellows and Early Attendings: The Impact of These Technologies on Their Training and Practice

BACKGROUND

There is scant data on the role that robotics and navigation play in spine surgery training and practice of early attendings. This study aimed to assess the impact of navigation and robotics on spine surgery training and practice.

METHODS

A survey gathering information on utilization of navigation and robotics in training and practice was administered to trainees and early attendings.

RESULTS

A total of 51 surveys were returned completed: 71% were attendings (average practice years: 2), 29% were trainees. During training, 22% were exposed to only fluoroscopy, 75% were exposed to navigation, 51% were exposed to robotics, and 40% were exposed to both navigation and robotics. In our sample, 87% and 61% of respondents who had exposure to navigation and robotics, respectively, felt that it had a positive impact on their training. In practice, 28% utilized only fluoroscopy, 69% utilized navigation, 30% utilized robotics, and 28% utilized both navigation and robotics. The top 3 reasons behind positive impact on training and practice were: 1) increased screw accuracy, 2) exposure to upcoming technology, and 3) less radiation exposure. The top 3 reasons behind negative impact were: 1) compromises training to independently place screws, 2) time and personnel requirements, and 3) concerns about availing it in practice. In sum, 76% of attendings felt that they will be utilizing more navigation and robotics in 5 years' time.

CONCLUSIONS

Navigation and robotics have a perceivably positive impact on training and are increasingly being incorporated into practice. However, associated concerns demand spine surgeons to be thoughtful about how they integrate these technologies moving forward.

The impact of robotic assistance for lumbar fusion surgery on 90-day surgical outcomes and 1-year revisions

Objectives

To evaluate the (1) 90-day surgical outcomes and (2) 1-year revision rate of robotic versus nonrobotic lumbar fusion surgery.

Methods

Patients >18 years of age who underwent primary lumbar fusion surgery at our institution were identified and propensity-matched in a 1:1 fashion based on robotic assistance during surgery. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and surgical outcomes, including 90-day surgical complications and 1-year revisions, were collected. Multivariable regression analysis was performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05.

Results

Four hundred and fifteen patients were identified as having robotic lumbar fusion and were matched to a control group. Bivariant analysis revealed no significant difference in total 90-day surgical complications (P = 0.193) or 1-year revisions (P = 0.178). The operative duration was longer in robotic surgery (287 + 123 vs. 205 + 88.3, P ≤ 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that robotic fusion was not a significant predictor of 90-day surgical complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76 [0.32-1.67], P = 0.499) or 1-year revisions (OR = 0.58 [0.28-1.18], P = 0.142). Other variables identified as the positive predictors of 1-year revisions included levels fused (OR = 1.26 [1.08-1.48], P = 0.004) and current smokers (OR = 3.51 [1.46-8.15], P = 0.004).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that robotic-assisted and nonrobotic-assisted lumbar fusions are associated with a similar risk of 90-day surgical complications and 1-year revision rates; however, robotic surgery does increase time under anesthesia.

A Review of the Role of Robotics in Surgery: To DaVinci and Beyond!

Since its inception in 1985, robotic surgery has evolved into a mainstream surgical approach that has become virtually synonymous with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and adopted across several specialties offering decreased patient morbidity and improved post-operative outcomes. This article discusses the current role of robotics in MIS and its varied applications, prevalence in the community and the future of the field.

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.

Accuracies of various types of spinal robot in robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With the popularization of robot-assisted spinal surgeries, it is still uncertain whether robots with different designs could lead to different results in the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. This study aimed to compare the pedicle screw inserting accuracies among the spinal surgeries assisted by various types of robot and estimate the rank probability of each robot-assisted operative technique involved.

METHODS

The electronic literature database of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CNKI, WANFANG and the Cochrane Library was searched in November 2021. The primary outcome was the Gertzbein-Robbins classification of pedicle screws inserted with various operative techniques. After the data extraction and direct meta-analysis process, a network model was established in the Bayesian framework and further analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

Among all the 15 eligible RCTs, 4 types of robot device, namely Orthbot, Renaissance, SpineAssist and TiRobot, were included in this study. In the network meta-analysis, the Orthbot group (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13-0.58), the Renaissance group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.86), the SpineAssist group (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.34) and the conventional surgery group (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.31) were inferior to the TiRobot group in the proportion of grade A pedicle screws. Moreover, the results of rank probabilities revealed that in terms of accuracy, the highest-ranked robot was TiRobot, followed by Renaissance and Orthbot.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, current RCT evidence indicates that TiRobot has an advantage in the accuracy of the pedicle screw placement, while there is no significant difference among the Orthbot-assisted technique, the Renaissance-assisted technique, the conventional freehand technique, and the SpineAssist-assisted technique in accuracy.

Robot-assisted versus navigation-assisted screw placement in spinal vertebrae

PURPOSE

Both robots and navigation are effective strategies for optimizing screw placement, as compared to freehand placement. However, few studies have compared the accuracy and efficiency of these two techniques. Thus, the purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy and efficiency of robotic and navigation-assisted screw placement in the spinal vertebrae.

METHODS

The 24 spine models were divided into a robot- and navigation-assisted groups according to the left and right sides of the pedicle. The C-arm transmits image data simultaneously to the robot and navigates using only one scan. After screw placement, the accuracy of the two techniques were compared using "angular deviation" and "Gertzbein and Robbins scale" in different segments (C1-7, T1-4, T5-8, T9-12, and L1-S1). In addition, operation times were compared between robot- and navigation-assisted groups.

RESULTS

Robots and navigation systems can simultaneously assist in screw placement. The robot-assisted group had significantly less angular deviation than the navigation-assisted group from C1 to S1 (p < 0.001). At the C1-7 and T1-4 segments, the robot-assisted group had a higher rate of acceptable screws than the robot-assisted group. However, at the T5-8, T9-12, and L1-S1 segments, no significant difference was found in the incidence of acceptable screws between the two groups. Moreover, robot-assisted screw placement required less operative time than navigation (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The robot is more accurate and efficient than navigation in aiding screw placement. In addition, robots and navigation can be combined without increasing the number of fluoroscopic views.

Robot-assisted percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a retrospective matched-cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aims to introduce the principle, clinical efficacy, and learning curve of robot-assisted percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP).

METHODS

Forty-two patients who underwent robot-assisted single-level PVP were analyzed retrospectively and 42 age-matched patients using freehand technique were selected as the control group. The visual analog scale, operation time, radiation exposure, accuracy, and learning curve were analyzed.

RESULTS

The puncture time and total operation time were significantly shorter, and the puncture and total fluoroscopy number were fewer in the robot group. The deviation between pre-operative planned and actual puncture trajectory well met clinical requirement. The puncture time, total operation time, and puncture fluoroscopy number were significantly more in early cases than in later cases in the robot group.

CONCLUSION

The robot-assisted pedicle puncture technique shortens the operation time and reduces radiation exposure, and the accuracy meets the clinical requirement in PVP. The learning curve is short and not steep.

Development of a Robotic Spine Surgery Program: Rationale, Strategy, Challenges, and Monitoring of Outcomes After Implementation

Surgical robots were invented in the 1980s, and since then, robotic-assisted surgery has become commonplace. In the field of spine surgery, robotic assistance is utilized mainly to place pedicle screws, and multiple studies have demonstrated that robots can increase the accuracy of screw placement and reduce radiation exposure to the patient and the surgeon. However, this may be at the cost of longer operative times, complications, and the risk of errors in mapping the patient's anatomy.

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.

[Does navigation still have a value in trauma surgery?]

BACKGROUND

Navigation systems are supposed to increase precision and support surgeons while they perform certain interventions. 2D, or nowadays 3D, systems are used in image-based approaches. Image-free navigation uses 3D printing.

INDICATIONS

There are several studies on navigation procedures in trauma surgery. In contrast to limb surgery, the use of 3D navigation in pelvic and spine surgery is already well established. Navigation is especially regularly used to treat fractures of the posterior pelvic ring and for posterior stabilization of the cervical spine.

REQUIREMENTS

To be able to utilize navigation systems optimally, the learning curve should be completed, and the technique should be used regularly. In addition, the surgeon should know the surgical technique without navigation in order to recognize potential errors of the navigation.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

Advantages include increased patient safety, reduction in radiation exposure and less invasive surgical procedures. However, among other disadvantages, initial costs are high.

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.