A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Accuracy and Clinical Outcome of Pedicle Screw Placement Using Robot-Assisted Technology and Conventional Freehand Technique

Transiliac-Transsacral Screw Fixation is Superior to Lumbopelvic Stabilization in the Treatment of Minimally Displaced Sacral H-/U-Type Fragility Fractures

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes and complications of transiliac-transsacral screw fixation (TIS) and lumbopelvic fixation (LPS), the 2 most common fixation methods for nondisplaced and minimally displaced H-/U- type sacral fragility fractures.

METHODS

Medical records of patients treated with TIS or LPS for nondisplaced and minimally displaced H-/U-type sacral fragility fractures at 2 level A trauma centers between 2012 and 2022 were analyzed. Postoperative low back pain and mobility levels were assessed as primary outcomes before discharge and at 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively. Surgery time, blood loss, and surgical complication rates were assessed as secondary outcomes. Statistical analyses consisted of Fisher's exact tests for frequency distributions and Mann-Whitney-U tests and t-tests for group comparisons.

RESULTS

52 patients undergoing TIS (mean age: 78 ± 9 years) and 36 patients undergoing LPS (74 ± 10 years) with no discrepancy in demographic parameters were identified. There were no differences in low back pain levels between the 2 groups before surgery, before discharge, at 6 weeks postoperatively, and at 6 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). There were no differences in mobility levels before surgery, before discharge, at 6 weeks postoperatively, and at 6 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). Duration of surgery was shorter after TIS (36 ± 13 min) compared to LPS (113 ± 31 min) (P < 0.0001). Intraoperative blood loss was lower for TIS (median <20 mL) compared to LPS (median 125 mL) (P < 0.0001). Postoperative radiculopathy was less frequent after TIS (n = 1) compared to LPS (n = 3) (P > 0.05). Median length of stay was shorter after TIS (11 days) compared to LPS (14 days) (P < 0.05). Rates of reoperations directly related to the index surgery were lower after TIS (n = 2) compared to LPS (n = 10) (P < 0.01). Implant failures were observed only after LPS (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

Patients with nondisplaced and minimally displaced H-/U- type sacral fragility fractures may preferably be treated using TIS, as it is equivalent to LPS in terms of low back pain reduction and restoration of mobility, but allows for shorter operative time, less blood loss and lower reoperation rates. Prospective randomized studies should be conducted to substantiate our findings and develop distinct treatment recommendations.

Advancing robot-guided techniques in lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spine surgery is a crucial intervention for addressing spinal injuries or conditions affecting the spine, often involving lumbar fusion through pedicle screw (PS) insertion. The precision of PS placement is pivotal in orthopedic surgery. This systematic review compares the accuracy of robot-guided (RG) surgery with free-hand fluoroscopy-guided (FFG), free-hand without fluoroscopy-guided (FHG), and computed tomography image-guided (CTG) techniques for PS insertion.

METHODS

A systematic search of various databases from 1 January 2013 to 30 December 2023 was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes, including PS insertion accuracy and breach rate, were analyzed using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy of PS insertion using RG, based on 37 studies involving 3,837 patients and 22,117 PS, is 97.9%, with a breach rate of 0.021. RG demonstrated superior accuracy compared to FHG and CTG, with breach rates of 3.4 and 0.015 respectively for RG versus FHG, and 3.8 and 0.026 for RG versus CTG. Additionally, RG was associated with reduced mean estimated blood loss compared to CTG, indicating improved safety.

CONCLUSIONS

The RG is associated with enhanced accuracy of PS insertion and reduced breach rates over other methods. However, additional randomized controlled trials comparing these modalities are needed for further validation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023483997.

Robotic-assisted spine surgery-a narrative review

Background and Objective

Emerging technologies have increasingly been adopted in spine surgery in the attempt to increase precision and improve outcomes. Robotic assistance is an area of significant interest, with proposed benefits including increased accuracy, decreased complication rates, and decreased radiation exposure. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the currently available robotic assistance systems and their associated outcomes and limitations.

Methods

A review of national databases was performed using key terms "robotic", "spine", and "surgery" for literature from 2014 to 2023. Studies that aimed to describe the utilities of endoscopic surgeries, associated outcomes, limitations, and future directions were included. Studies that were not in English were excluded.

Key Content and Findings

This review includes a brief overview of the history of robotic spine surgery as well as its clinical outcomes, limitations, and future directions.

Conclusions

Robotic-assisted spine surgery has seen increasing use in the attempt to increase precision and improve outcomes and has been associated with increased accuracy in pedicle screw placement and decreased complication rates. Barriers to its adoption include a significant learning curve, possibly longer operative cases, and significant associated costs. As robotic assistance continues to become increasingly popular in spine surgery, it is critical for surgeons to understand the technology available and the associated outcomes to make informed decisions when considering which system to incorporate into their practice.

Accurate placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws using a handheld iOS-based navigation device: a prospective intra-patient agreement study

BACKGROUND

Accurate pedicle screw placement is a challenge with reported misplacement rates of 10% and higher. A handheld navigation device (HND) may provide accuracy equal to CT-based navigation (CT-Nav) but without the cost and complexity.

OBJECTIVE

To study the accuracy of a handheld navigation device for pedicle screw placement.

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective cross-sectional study with consistently applied reference standard enrolled 20 patients undergoing 92 pedicle screw placements.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent pedicle screw placement between May 2022 and September 2022.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Pedicle screw placement accuracy per Gertzbein-Robbins.

METHODS

Once the screw pilot hole was established, the proposed trajectory of the HND was compared with that proposed by CT-Nav. Postoperatively, screw accuracy was graded according to Gertzbein-Robbins by a blinded radiologist based on CT scans. Accuracy was compared between the two systems and published control for fluoroscopy assisted and CT-Nav placement using Bayesian posterior distribution.

RESULTS

The trajectory proposed by the HND and CT-Nav were in agreement in 98.9% (95% Exact CI; 94.09%-99.97%). The HND accuracy was 98.9% with 91 screws rated "A" and 1 rated "C". Non-inferiority to fluoroscopic placement was achieved because the one-sided normal-approximation 95% CI Lower Bound (LB) of 95.3% is greater than the Performance Goal (PG) of 83.4%. Post-hoc analysis demonstrated that the probability of superiority of the HND relative to the historical accuracy rate of 91.5% for fluoroscopy assisted procedures is >0.999 and that the HND's accuracy rate is within 4.5% of CT-Nav of 95.5% is >0.999. No adverse events or intra-operative complications associated with HND were observed. There was 1 (1.1%) intra-operative repositioning and no re-operations for any reason.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy rate of the HND was 98.9%, and the proposed trajectory matched with CT-Nav in 98.9% of the time. This is superior to the historical published accuracy rate for fluoroscopy-assisted procedures and equivalent to the historical published accuracy rate for CT-Nav.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch trial register NL74268.058.20.

Robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion versus navigation-based and freehand techniques for posterior spinal fusion in scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The role of robotics in spine surgery remains controversial, especially for scoliosis correction surgery. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted (RA) surgery specifically for scoliosis surgery by comparing RA to both navigation systems (NS) and conventional freehand techniques (CF).

METHODS

As per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted via an electronic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All papers comparing RA to either NS or CF for posterior spinal fusion in scoliosis were included. Fixed and random effects models of analysis were utilised based on analysis heterogeneity.

RESULTS

10 observational studies were included in total. RA had significantly greater odds of accurate pedicle screw placement relative to both NS (OR = 2.02, CI = 1.52-2.67, p < 0.00001) and CF (OR = 3.06, CI = 1.79-5.23, p < 0.00001). The downside of RA was the significantly greater operation duration relative to NS (MD = 10.74, CI = 3.52-17.97, p = 0.004) and CF (MD = 40.27, CI = 20.90, p < 0.0001). Perioperative outcomes including estimated blood loss, radiation exposure, length of hospital stay, cobb angle correction rate, postoperative SRS score, VAS pain score, JOA score, as well as rates of neurological injury and revision surgery, were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RA offers significantly greater pedicle screw placement accuracy relative to NS and CF, however, surgery can take longer. In terms of perioperative outcomes, all three techniques are comparable.

Efficacy of computer-assisted robotic based clinical training program for spinal oncology education on pedicle screw placement

Pedicle screw placement (PSP) is the fundamental surgical technique that requires high accuracy for novice orthopedists studying spinal oncology education. Therefore, we set forth to establish a computer-assisted robotic navigation training program for novice spinal oncology education. Novice orthopedists were involved in this study to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the computer-assisted robotic navigation (CARN) training program. In this research, trainees were randomly taught by the CARN training program and the traditional training program. We prospectively collected the clinical data of patients with spinal tumors from 1st May 2021 to 1st March 2022. The ability of PSP was evaluated by cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis, learning curve, and accuracy of pedicle screws. The patients included in both groups had similar baseline characteristics. In the CUSUM analysis of the learning curve for accurate PSP, the turning point in the CARN group was lower than that in the traditional group (70th vs. 92nd pedicle screw). The LC-CUSUM test indicated competency for PSP at the 121st pedicle screw in the CARN group and the 138th pedicle screw in the traditional group. The accuracy of PSP was also significantly higher in the CARN group than in the traditional group (88.17% and 79.55%, P = 0.03 < 0.05). Furthermore, no major complications occurred in either group. We first described CARN in spinal oncology education and indicated the CARN training program as a novel, efficient and safe training program for surgeons.

Clinical Outcome Analysis of Robot-Assisted Pedicle Screw Insertion in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis Complicated with Spinal Fractures

BACKGROUND

Vague spinal anatomical landmarks in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) make intraoperative insertion of pedicle screws difficult under direct vision. Currently, the clinical outcome is significantly improved with robot guidance. This study aims to explore the efficacy of robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion in treating AS combined with spinal fractures.

METHODS

Forty patients (341 screws) who underwent pedicle screw insertion with AS complicated with spinal fractures were included. According to different surgical methods, 16 patients (135 screws) were classified into the robot group and 24 (206 screws) into the free-hand group. Intraoperative blood loss, operative duration, and adverse events were compared between the 2 groups. Gertzbein and Robbins classification was used to classify the accuracy of screw position. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by Visual Analog Scale, Japanese Orthopedic Association, and Oswestry Disability Index.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences between baseline data of the groups. The difference in the blood loss between groups wasn't significant, nor was the operative duration. No severe adverse events related to pedicle screw insertion were reported in either group. Notably, the accuracy of screw insertion was significantly higher in the robot group (129/135) than in the free-hand group (182/206). The lateral perforation prevalence didn't differ among groups. Visual Analog Scale in the third month postoperatively was lower in the robot group than in the free-hand group, with a significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates statistically superior accuracy and surgical outcome of robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion in the treatment of AS complicated with spinal fractures compared with the traditional free-hand operation.

Freehand power-assisted pedicle screw placement in scoliotic patients: results on 5522 consecutive pedicle screws

Pedicle screws is the current gold standard in spine surgery, achieving a solid tricolumnar fixation which is unreachable by wires and hooks. The freehand technique is the most widely adopted for pedicle screws placing. While freehand technique has been classically performed with manual tools, there has been a recent trend toward the use of power tools. However, placing a pedicle screw remains a technically demanding procedure with significant risk of complications. The aim of this article is to retrospectively evaluate safety and accuracy of free-hand power-assisted pedicle screw placement in a cohort of patients who underwent correction and fusion surgery for scoliosis (both idiopathic and non-idiopathic) in our department. A retrospective review of all patients with scoliosis who underwent surgery and received a postoperative CT scan in our department in a 9-year period was undertaken. Screw density, number and location of pedicle screws were measured using pre and postoperative full-length standing and lateral supine side-bending radiographs. Then, postoperative CT scan was used to assess the accuracy of screw placement according to Gertzbein-Robbins scale. Malpositioned screws were divided according to their displacement direction. Finally, intra and postoperative neurological complications and the need for revision of misplaced screws were recorded. A total of 205 patients were included, with a follow-up of 64.9 ± 38.67 months. All constructs were high density (average density 1.97 ± 0.04), and the average number of fusion levels was 13.72 ± 1.97. A total of 5522 screws were placed: 5308 (96.12%) were grade A, 141 (2.5%) grade B, 73 (1.32%) grade C. Neither grade D nor grade E trajectories were found. The absolute accuracy (grade A) rate was 96.12% (5308/5522) and the effective accuracy (within the safe zone, grade A + B) was 98.6% (5449/5522). Of the 73 misplaced screws (grade C), 59 were lateral (80.80%), 8 anterior (10.95%) and 6 medial (8.22%); 58 were in convexity, while 15 were in concavity (the difference was not statistically significant, p = 0.33). Intraoperatively, neither neurological nor vascular complications were recorded. Postoperatively, 4 screws needed revision (0.072% of the total): Power-assisted pedicle screw placing may be a safe an accurate technique in the scoliosis surgery, both of idiopathic and non-idiopathic etiology. Further, and higher quality, research is necessary in order to better assess the results of this relatively emerging technique.

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.

Robot-navigated pedicle screw insertion can reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay: analysis of 1,633 patients utilizing propensity score matching

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Navigation and robotic technologies have emerged as an alternative option to conventional freehand techniques for pedicle screw insertion. However, the effectiveness of these technologies in reducing the perioperative complications of spinal fusion surgery remains limited due to the small cohort size in the existing literature.

PURPOSE

To investigate whether utilization of robotically navigated pedicle screw insertion can reduce the perioperative complications of spinal fusion surgery-including reoperations-with a sizeable cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent primary lumbar fusion surgery between 2019 and 2022.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Perioperative complications including readmission, reoperation, its reasons, estimated blood loss, operative time, and length of hospital stay.

METHODS

Patients' data were collected including age, sex, race, body mass index, upper-instrumented vertebra, lower-instrumented vertebra, number of screws inserted, and primary procedure name. Patients were classified into the following two groups: freehand group and robot group. The variable-ratio greedy matching was utilized to create the matched cohorts by propensity score and compared the outcomes between the two group.

RESULTS

A total of 1,633 patients who underwent primary instrumented spinal lumbar fusion surgery were initially identified (freehand 1,286; robot 347). After variable ratio matching was performed with age, sex, body mass index, fused levels, and upper instrumented vertebrae level, 694 patients in the freehand group and 347 patients in robot groups were selected. The robot group showed less estimated blood loss (418.9±398.9 vs 199.2±239.6 ml; p<.001), shorter LOS (4.1±3.1 vs 3.2±3.0 days; p<.001) and similar operative time (212.5 vs 222.0 minutes; p=.151). Otherwise, there was no significant difference in readmission rate (3.6% vs 2.6%; p=.498), reoperation rate (3.2% vs 2.6%; p=.498), and screw malposition requiring reoperation (five cases, 0.7% vs one case, 0.3%; p=1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative complications requiring readmission and reoperation were similar between fluoroscopy guided freehand and robotic surgery. Robot-guided pedicle screw insertion can enhance surgical efficiency by reducing intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay without extending operative time.

Improving pedicle screw path planning by vertebral posture estimation

Objective.Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in spinal surgery can reduce the complications associated with the screw placement and reduce the hospital return counts due to malfunctions. However, it requires accurate planning for a high-quality procedure. The state-of-the-art technologies reported in the literature either ignore the anatomical variations across vertebrae or require substantial human interactions. We present an improved approach that achieves pedicle screw path planning through multiple projections of a numerically re-oriented vertebra with the estimated posture.Approach.We proposed an improved YOLO-type neural network model (YOLOPOSE3D) to estimate the posture of a vertebra before pedicle path planning. In YOLOPOSE3D, the vertebral posture is given as a rotation quaternion and 3D location coordinates by optimizing the intersection over union of the vertebra with the predicted posture and the actual posture. Then, a new local coordinate system is established for the vertebra based on the estimated posture. Finally, the optimal pedicle screw path trajectory is determined from the multiple projections of the vertebra in the local coordinates.Main results.The experimental results in difficult cases of scoliosis showed that the new YOLOPOSE3D network could accurately detect the location and posture of the vertebra with average translation and orientation errors as small as 1.55 mm and 2.55°. The screw path planning achieved 83.1% success rate without breaking the pedicle cortex for the lumbar vertebral L1-L5, which is better than that of a doctor's manual planning, 82.4%. With the clinical class A requirement to allow less than 2 mm out of the pedicle cortex, the success rate achieved nearly 100%.Significance.The proposed YOLOPOSED3D method can accurately determine the vertebral postures. With the improved posture prior, better clinical outcomes can be achieved for pedicle screw placement in spine internal fixation procedures.

Complication, fusion, and revision rate in the lumbar cortical bone trajectory and pedicle screw fixation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To obtain the complication rate, fusion rate, and revision rate of the lumbar cortical bone trajectory technique and pedicle screw fixation technique in lumbar interbody fusion surgery by single-arm meta-analysis and lay a basis for orthopedic surgeons to select the fixation techniques and perioperative management.

METHODS

PubMed, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched comprehensively. Data extraction, content analysis, and quality assessment of the literature were performed by two independent reviewers according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines using R and STATA software for single-arm meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The total complication rate of the lumbar cortical bone trajectory technique was 6%, including a hardware complication rate of 2%, ASD (adjacent segment degeneration) rate of 1%, wound infection rate of 1%, dural damage rate of 1%, hematoma rate tending to 0%, fusion rate of 94%, and revision rate of 1%. Lumbar pedicle screw fixation techniques had a total complication rate of 9%, with a hardware complication rate of 2%, ASD rate of 3%, wound infection rate of 2%, dural damage rate of 1%, hematoma rate tending to 0%, fusion rate of 94%, and revision rate of 5%. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022354550.

CONCLUSION

Lumbar cortical bone trajectory was associated with a lower total complication rate, ASD rate, wound infection rate, and revision rate than pedicle screw fixation. The cortical bone trajectory technique reduces the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications and can be an alternative in lumbar interbody fusion surgery.

Reported Events Associated With Spine Robots: An Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-Sectional Analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize medical device reports (MDRs) between August 1, 2017 and November 30, 2021 relating to robot-assisted spine systems within the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database maintained by The Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODS

The MAUDE database was abstract for all MDRs relating to each FDA-approved robot-assisted spine system. Event descriptions were reviewed and characterized into specific event types. Outcome measures include specific robot-assisted spine systems and reported events as detailed by the MDRs. All data is de-identified and in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

RESULTS

There were 263 MDRs consisting of 265 reported events. Misplaced screws represented 61.5% (n = 163) of reported events. Of the 163 reported events, 57.1% (n = 93) described greater than 1 misplaced screw, 15.3% (n = 25) required return to the operating room, 8.6% (n = 14) resulted in neurologic injury, 4.3% (n = 7) resulted in dural tear, and 1.2% (n = 2) resulted in hemorrhage or bleeding. Reported events other than misplaced screws included system imprecision detected prior to screw placement (58/265, 21.9%), mechanical failure (23/265, 8.7%), and software failure (18/265, 6.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

As more robot-assisted spine systems gain FDA approval and the adoption of these systems continues to grow, documenting and understanding the range of reported events associated with each "tool" is imperative to balancing patient safety with surgical innovation. This study of the MAUDE database provides a unique summary of reported events associated with robot-assisted spine systems that is not directly linked to a research setting.

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.

Artificial intelligence in spine surgery

The continuous progress of research and clinical trials has offered a wide variety of information concerning the spine and the treatment of the different spinal pathologies that may occur. Planning the best therapy for each patient could be a very difficult and challenging task as it often requires thorough processing of the patient's history and individual characteristics by the clinician. Clinicians and researchers also face problems when it comes to data availability due to patients' personal information protection policies. Artificial intelligence refers to the reproduction of human intelligence via special programs and computers that are trained in a way that simulates human cognitive functions. Artificial intelligence implementations to daily clinical practice such as surgical robots that facilitate spine surgery and reduce radiation dosage to medical staff, special algorithms that can predict the possible outcomes of conservative versus surgical treatment in patients with low back pain and disk herniations, and systems that create artificial populations with great resemblance and similar characteristics to real patients are considered to be a novel breakthrough in modern medicine. To enhance the body of the related literature and inform the readers on the clinical applications of artificial intelligence, we performed this review to discuss the contribution of artificial intelligence in spine surgery and pathology.

Robotic and navigated pedicle screws are safer and more accurate than fluoroscopic freehand screws: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Navigated and robotic pedicle screw placement systems have been developed to improve the accuracy of screw placement. However, the literature comparing the safety and accuracy of robotic and navigated screw placement with fluoroscopic freehand screw placement in thoracolumbar spine surgery has been limited.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials that compared the accuracy and safety profiles of robotic and navigated pedicle screws with fluoroscopic freehand pedicle screws.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review and meta-analysis PATIENT SAMPLE: Only randomized controlled trials comparing robotic-assisted or navigated pedicle screws placement with freehand pedicle screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Odds ratio (OR) estimates for screw accuracy according to the Gertzbein-Robbins scale and relative risk (RR) for various surgical complications.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for English-language studies from inception through April 7, 2022, including references of eligible articles. The search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers conducted a full abstraction of all data, and one reviewer verified accuracy. Information was extracted on study design, quality, bias, participants, and risk estimates. Data and estimates were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method for random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 14 papers encompassing 12 randomized controlled trials were identified (n=892 patients, 4,046 screws). The pooled analysis demonstrated that robotic and navigated pedicle screw placement techniques were associated with higher odds of screw accuracy (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.24-5.72, p=.01). Robotic and navigated screw placement was associated with a lower risk of facet joint violations (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.38, p<.01) and major complications (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.84, p=.02). There were no observed differences between groups in nerve root injury (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.11-2.30, p=.37), or return to operating room for screw revision (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07-1.13, p=.07).

CONCLUSIONS

These estimates suggest that robotic and navigated screw placement techniques are associated with higher odds of screw accuracy and superior safety profile compared with fluoroscopic freehand techniques. Additional randomized controlled trials will be needed to further validate these findings.

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.

Robot-assisted and augmented reality-assisted spinal instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of screw accuracy and outcomes over the last decade

OBJECTIVE

The use of technology-enhanced methods in spine surgery has increased immensely over the past decade. Here, the authors present the largest systematic review and meta-analysis to date that specifically addresses patient-centered outcomes, including the risk of inaccurate screw placement and perioperative outcomes in spinal surgeries using robotic instrumentation and/or augmented reality surgical navigation (ARSN).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases spanning the last decade (January 2011-November 2021) was performed to present all clinical studies comparing robot-assisted instrumentation and ARSN with conventional instrumentation techniques in lumbar spine surgery. The authors compared these two technologies as they relate to screw accuracy, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative time, length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, radiation dose and time, and the rate of reoperation.

RESULTS

A total of 64 studies were analyzed that included 11,113 patients receiving 20,547 screws. Robot-assisted instrumentation was associated with less risk of inaccurate screw placement (p < 0.0001) regardless of control arm approach (freehand, fluoroscopy guided, or navigation guided), fewer reoperations (p < 0.0001), fewer perioperative complications (p < 0.0001), lower EBL (p = 0.0005), decreased LOS (p < 0.0001), and increased intraoperative time (p = 0.0003). ARSN was associated with decreased radiation exposure compared with robotic instrumentation (p = 0.0091) and fluoroscopy-guided (p < 0.0001) techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, the pooled data suggest that technology-enhanced thoracolumbar instrumentation is advantageous for both patients and surgeons. As the technology progresses and indications expand, it remains essential to continue investigations of both robotic instrumentation and ARSN to validate meaningful benefit over conventional instrumentation techniques in spine surgery.

Negotiating for new technologies: guidelines for the procurement of assistive technologies in spinal surgery: a narrative review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This is a narrative review with the objective to discuss available assistive technologies for spinal surgery. Characteristics, costs, and compatibility of the different systems are summarized and recommendations made regarding acquiring these technologies. The availability of assistive technologies in spine surgery continues to evolve rapidly. The literature is lacking a collective summary of the available technologies and guidelines for acquisition. This is a narrative review which (I) presents an up-to-date summary of the currently available assistive technologies in spinal surgery; (II) makes comment on the utility of imaging, navigation, and robotics; (III) makes recommendations for the utility of the platform based on hospital size and (IV) discuss factors involved in negotiating for the purchase of these new technologies.

METHODS

We assemble the most up-to-date collection of description, characteristics and pricing of assistive technologies in spinal surgery. We compare and contrast these technologies and make recommendations regarding acquisition.

KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS

These technologies require a learning-curve for the surgeon and the operating room staff to understand how to use them efficiently. Surgeons need to be involved in the process of purchase decisions. Surgeons occupy a unique position in the health care infrastructure as their approach to care has significant ramifications on both the quality and cost of care. Surgeons should maintain conviction that their training and practice has allowed the use of these technologies to provide safer and more effective care for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Assistive technologies and prostheses for spinal fusion are evolving rapidly. This article serves as an encompassing reference to the current technologies. These technologies will play a significant role in the delivery of spinal health care in the future. All stakeholders stand to benefit from the increased value these technologies bring to patient care.

When giants talk; robotic dialog during thoracolumbar and sacral surgery

Background

Spinal trauma patients treated in a specialized hybrid operating room (OR) using two robotic systems communicating during surgery.

Methods

Retrospective review of patients with thoracolumbar or sacral fractures who underwent surgical fixation between Jan 2017 to Jan 2020 with robotic-guided percutaneous pedicle screw insertion in the specialized hybrid OR with Robotic flat panel 3D C-arm (ArtisZeego) for intraoperative interventional imaging connected with the robotic-guidance platform Renaissance (Mazor Robotics).

Results

Twenty eight surgeries were performed in 27 patients; 23 with traumatic spinal fractures, 4 with multi-level thoracolumbar compression fractures due to severe osteoporosis. Average patient age 49 (range 12–86). Average radiation exposure time 40 s (range 12–114 s). Average radiation exposure dose 11,584 ± SD uGym² (range 4454–58,959). Lumber levels operated on were between T5 and S2 (shortest three vertebras and longest eight vertebras). 235 (range 5–11) trajectories were performed. All trajectories were accurate in all cases percutaneous pedicle screws placement was correct, without breach noted at the pedicle in any of the cases. No major complications reported. In all cases, follow-up X-rays showed adequate fracture reduction with restoration.

Conclusions

Merging of surgical robotics technologies increases patient safety and surgeon and patient confidence in percutaneous spine traumatic procedures.

Robotic-guided placement of cervical pedicle screws: feasibility and accuracy

INTRODUCTION

It has been shown that pedicle screw instrumentation in the cervical spine has superior biomechanical pullout strength and stability. However, due to the complex and variable anatomy of the cervical pedicles and the risk of catastrophic complications, cervical pedicle screw placement is not widely utilized.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective, consecutive patient review.

OBJECTIVE

To review and report our experience with robotic guided cervical pedicle screw placement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed preoperative and postoperative CT scans of 12 consecutive patients who underwent cervical pedicle screw fixation with robotic guidance. Screw placement and deviation from the preoperative plan were assessed using the robotic system's planning software by fusing the preoperative CT (with the planned cervical pedicle screws) to the post-op CT. This process was carried out by manually aligning the anatomical landmarks on the two CTs. Once a satisfactory fusion was achieved, the software's measurement tool was used manually to compare the planned vs. actual screw placements in the axial, sagittal and coronal planes within the instrumented pedicle in a resolution of 0.1 mm. Medical charts were reviewed for technical issues and intra-operative complications.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight cervical pedicle screws were reviewed in 12 patients; mean age = 65 years, M:F = 2:1, and mean BMI = 27.99. No intra-operative complications related to the cervical pedicle screw placement were reported. Robotic guidance was successful in all 88 screws: eight in C2, 14 in C3, 16 in each of C4 and C5, 19 in C6, and 15 at C7. There were 14 pedicle screw breaches (15.9%); all were medial, less than 1 mm, and with no clinical consequences. In the axial plane, the screws deviated from the preoperative plan by 1.32 ± 1.17 mm and in the sagittal plane by 1.27 ± 1.00 mm. In the trajectory view, the overall deviation was 2.20 ± 1.17 mm. Although differences were observed in screw deviation from the pre-op plan between the right and left sides, they were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that robotic-guided cervical pedicle screw placement is feasible and safe. The medial breaches did not result in any clinical consequences.

Robotics and Spine Surgery: Lessons From the Personal Computer and Industrial Revolutions

Over the past decade, several review articles have evaluated the techniques and outcomes of robotics vs traditional methods in spine surgery. Recently, robot-assisted pedicle screw placement has emerged, representing an important milestone in the evolution of spine surgery. In the present article, the authors aim to provide the historical context regarding the use and growth of spinal robotics through the lens of the Industrial Revolution and the personal computer revolution. While the former provides insight into the current implications of robotics in spine surgery, the latter predicts future steps in this arena.

Accuracy of Robotic-Assisted Spinal Surgery-Comparison to TJR Robotics, da Vinci Robotics, and Optoelectronic Laboratory Robotics

BACKGROUND

The optoelectronic camera source and data interpolation serve as the foundation for navigational integrity in the robotic-assisted surgical platform. The objective of the current systematic review serves to provide a basis for the numerical disparity that exists when comparing the intrinsic accuracy of optoelectronic cameras: accuracy observed in the laboratory setting versus accuracy in the clinical operative environment. It is postulated that there exists a greater number of connections in the optoelectronic kinematic chain when analyzing the clinical operative environment to the laboratory setting. This increase in data interpolation, coupled with intraoperative workflow challenges, reduces the degree of accuracy based on surgical application and to that observed in controlled musculoskeletal kinematic laboratory investigations.

METHODS

Review of the PubMed and Cochrane Library research databases was performed. The exhaustive literature compilation obtained was then vetted to reduce redundancies and categorized into topics of intrinsic optoelectronic accuracy, registration accuracy, musculoskeletal kinematic platforms, and clinical operative platforms.

RESULTS

A total of 147 references make up the basis for the current analysis. Regardless of application, the common denominators affecting overall optoelectronic accuracy are intrinsic accuracy, registration accuracy, and application accuracy. Intrinsic accuracy of optoelectronic tracking equaled or was less than 0.1 mm of translation and 0.1° of rotation per fiducial. Controlled laboratory platforms reported 0.1 to 0.5 mm of translation and 0.1°-1.0° of rotation per array. There is a huge falloff in clinical applications: accuracy in robotic-assisted spinal surgery reported 1.5 to 6.0 mm of translation and 1.5° to 5.0° of rotation when comparing planned to final implant position. Total Joint Robotics and da Vinci urologic robotics computed accuracy, as predicted, lies between these two extremes-1.02 mm for da Vinci and 2 mm for MAKO.

CONCLUSIONS

Navigational integrity and maintenance of fidelity of optoelectronic data is the cornerstone of robotic-assisted spinal surgery. Transitioning from controlled laboratory to clinical operative environments requires an increased number of steps in the optoelectronic kinematic chain and error potential. Diligence in planning, fiducial positioning, system registration, and intraoperative workflow have the potential to improve accuracy and decrease disparity between planned and final implant position. The key determining factors limiting navigation resolution accuracy are highlighted by this Cochrane research analysis.

Comparison of accuracy and safety between robot-assisted and conventional fluoroscope assisted placement of pedicle screws in thoracolumbar spine: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the screw positioning accuracy, complications related to pedicle screw implantation, revision rate and radiation exposure between robot screw placement and traditional fluoroscopic screw placement.

METHODS

We searched several databases, including CNKI, Wanfang database, cqvip datebase, PubMed, Cochrane library and EMBASE, to identify articles that might meet the criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 13 randomized controlled trial were included. The results showed that the pedicle screw accuracy of the robot assisted group was significantly better than that of the conventional freehand (FH) group (OR = 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] [2.75,4.45], P < .0001). There was no significant difference in the complications caused by pedicle screw implantation between the robot-assisted group and the conventional FH group [OR = 0.39, 95%CI (0.10,1.48), P = .17]. The rate of facet joint invasion in the robot-assisted group was significantly lower than that in the conventional FH group (OR = 0.06, 95%CI [0.01,0.29], P = .0006). The revision rate in the robot-assisted group was significantly lower than that in the conventional FH group (OR = 0.19, 95%CI [0.05,0.71], P = 0.0.01). There was no significant difference in the average radiation of pedicle screws implantation between the robot-assisted group and the conventional FH (mean difference = -7.94, 95%CI [-20.18,4.30], P = .20).

CONCLUSION

The robot-assisted group was significantly better than the conventional FH in the accuracy of pedicle screw placement and facet joint invasion rate and revision rate. There was no significant difference in the complication and fluoroscopy time between the two groups.