Risk Factors of Unsatisfactory Robot-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement: A Case-Control Study

Mazor X robot-assisted upper and lower cervical pedicle screw fixation: a case report and literature review

BACKGROUND

Manual placement of cervical pedicle screws is risky, and robot-assisted placement of atlantoaxial pedicle screws has not been reported.

CASE REPORT

We describe a 74-year-old female patient with atlantoaxial fracture and dislocation combined with spinal cord injury caused by a car accident. The left lower limb muscle strength was grade 0, the right upper limb muscle strength was grade 1, and the right lower limb muscle strength was grade 2. Loss of sensation below the clavicle level, decreased superficial sensation in the extremities, loss of deep sensation in the left lower extremity, and incontinence were observed. We successfully placed atlas pedicle screws with the assistance of the Mazor X robot. One week after the operation, radiological imaging revealed that the reduction effect was good, the placement of the pedicle screws was satisfactory, the left upper limb and left lower limb muscle strength was level 2, the right upper limb and the muscle strength of the right lower limb were grade 3, and the sensory function was partially restored. No complications related to screw placement were found at the 3-month postoperative follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Mazor X robot-assisted descending pedicle screw fixation of the atlas is feasible and safe.

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.

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.

Feasibility and safety report on robotic assistance for cervical pedicle screw fixation: a cadaveric study

This cadaveric study aimed to evaluate the safety and usability of a novel robotic system for posterior cervical pedicle screw fixation. Three human cadaveric specimens and C2-T3 were included. Freshly frozen human cadaver specimens were prepared and subjected to robot-assisted posterior cervical pedicle screw fixation using the robotic system. The accuracy of screw placement, breach rate, and critical structure violations were evaluated. The results were statistically compared with those of previous studies that used different robotic systems for cervical pedicle screw fixation. The robotic system demonstrated a high accuracy rate in screw placement. A significant number of screws were placed within predetermined safe zones. The total entry offset was 1.08 ± 0.83 mm, the target offset was 1.86 ± 0.50 mm, and the angle offset was 2.14 ± 0.77°. Accuracy rates comparable with those of previous studies using different robotic systems were achieved. The system was also feasible, allowing precise navigation and real-time feedback during the procedure. This cadaveric study validated the safety and usability of the novel robotic system for posterior cervical pedicle screw fixation. The system exhibited high precision in screw placement, and the results support the extension of the indications for robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation from the lumbar spine to the cervical spine.

A Single-Center Experience of Robotic-Assisted Spine Surgery in Korea : Analysis of Screw Accuracy, Potential Risk Factor of Screw Malposition and Learning Curve

OBJECTIVE

Recently, robotic-assisted spine surgery (RASS) has been considered a minimally invasive and relatively accurate method. In total, 495 robotic-assisted pedicle screw fixation (RAPSF) procedures were attempted on 100 patients during a 14-month period. The current study aimed to analyze the accuracy, potential risk factors, and learning curve of RAPSF.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated the position of RAPSF using the Gertzbein and Robbins scale (GRS). The accuracy was analyzed using the ratio of the clinically acceptable group (GRS grades A and B), the dissatisfying group (GRS grades C, D, and E), and the Surgical Evaluation Assistant program. The RAPSF was divided into the no-breached group (GRS grade A) and breached group (GRS grades B, C, D, and E), and the potential risk factors of RAPSF were evaluated. The learning curve was analyzed by changes in robot-used time per screw and the occurrence tendency of breached and failed screws according to case accumulation.

RESULTS

The clinically acceptable group in RAPSF was 98.12%. In the analysis using the Surgical Evaluation Assistant program, the tip offset was 2.37±1.89 mm, the tail offset was 3.09±1.90 mm, and the angular offset was 3.72°±2.72°. In the analysis of potential risk factors, the difference in screw fixation level (p=0.009) and segmental distance between the tracker and the instrumented level (p=0.001) between the no-breached and breached group were statistically significant, but not for the other factors. The mean difference between the no-breach and breach groups was statistically significant in terms of pedicle width (p<0.001) and tail offset (p=0.042). In the learning curve analysis, the occurrence of breached and failed screws and the robot-used time per screw screws showed a significant decreasing trend.

CONCLUSION

In the current study, RAPSF was highly accurate and the specific potential risk factors were not identified. However, pedicle width was presumed to be related to breached screw. Meanwhile, the robot-used time per screw and the incidence of breached and failed screws decreased with the learning curve.

Spine Surgical Robotics: Current Status and Recent Clinical Applications

With the development of artificial intelligence and the further deepening of medical-engineering integration, spine surgical robot-assisted (RA) technique has made significant progress and its applicability in clinical practice is constantly expanding in recent years. In this review, we have systematically summarized the majority of literature related to spine surgical robots in the past decade, and not only classified robots accordingly, but also summarized the latest research progress in RA technique for screw placement such as cervical, thoracic, and lumbar pedicle screws, cortical bone trajectory screws, cervical lateral mass screws, and S2 sacroiliac screws; guiding targeted puncture and placement of endoscope via the intervertebral foramen; complete resection of spinal tumor tissue; and decompressive laminectomy. In addition, this report also provides a detailed evaluation of RA technique's advantages and disadvantages, and clarifies the accuracy, safety, and practicality of RA technique. We consider that this review can help clinical physicians further understand and familiarize the current clinical application status of spine surgical robots, thereby promoting the continuous improvement and popularization of RA technique, and ultimately benefiting numerous patients.

Assessing the Accuracy of Spinal Instrumentation Using Augmented Reality (AR): A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Technological advancements, particularly in the realm of augmented reality (AR), may facilitate more accurate and precise pedicle screw placement. AR integrates virtual data into the operator's real-world view, allowing for the visualization of patient-specific anatomy and navigated trajectories. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of the accuracy of pedicle screw placement using AR-based systems. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE database, including studies reporting the accuracy of pedicle screw placement using AR. In total, 8 studies with 163 patients and 1259 screws were included in the analysis. XVision (XVS) was the most commonly used AR system (595 screws) followed by the Allura AR surgical navigation system (ARSN) (462 screws). The overall accuracy was calculated as 97.2% (95% CI 96.2-98.1% p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the accuracy rates achieved by XVS and Allura ARSN (p = 0.092). AR enables reliable, accurate placement of spinal instrumentation. Future research efforts should focus on comparative studies, cost effectiveness, operative time, and radiation exposure.

Severe Obesity Is an Independent Risk Factor of Early Readmission and Nonhome Discharge After Cervical Disc Replacement

OBJECTIVE

Despite growing interest in cervical disc replacement (CDR) for conditions such as cervical radiculopathy, limited data exists describing the impact of obesity on early postoperative outcomes and complications. These data are especially important as nearly half of the adult population in the United States is expected to become obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m2) by 2030. The goal of this study was to compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following CDR.

METHODS

The 2005-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program datasets were queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: Nonobese (BMI: 18.5-29.9 kg/m2), Obese class-I (BMI: 30-34.9 kg/m2), Obese class-II/III (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2). Morbidity was defined as the presence of any complication within 30 days postoperatively. Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, morbidity, individual complications, length of stay, frequency of nonhome discharge disposition were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 5,397 patients were included for analysis: 3,130 were nonobese, 1,348 were obese class I, and 919 were obese class II/III. There were more 2-level CDRs performed in the class II/III cohort compared to the nonobese group (25.7% vs. 21.5%, respectively; p < 0.05). Class-II/III had more nonhome discharges than class I and nonobese (2.1% vs. 0.5% vs. 0.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). Readmission rates differed as well (nonobese: 0.5%, class I: 1.1%, class II/III: 2.1%; p < 0.001) with pairwise significance between class II/II and nonobese. Class II/III obesity was an independent risk factor for both readmission (odds ratio [OR], 3.32; p = 0.002) and nonhome discharge (OR, 2.51; p = 0.02). Neither 30-day reoperation nor morbidity rates demonstrated significance. No mortalities were reported.

CONCLUSION

Although obese class-II/III were risk factors for 30-day readmission and nonhome discharge, there was no significant difference in reoperation rates or morbidity. CDR procedures can continue to be safely preformed independent of obesity status.

Three-Dimensional Quantitative Assessment of Pedicle Screw Accuracy in Clinical Utilization of a New Robotic System in Spine Surgery: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in patients undergoing percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with robotic guidance, using a newly developed 3-dimensional quantitative measurement system. The study also aimed to assess the clinical feasibility of the robotic system in the field of spinal surgery.

METHODS

A total of 113 patients underwent pedicle screw insertion using the CUVIS-spine pedicle screw guide system (CUREXO Inc.). Intraoperative O-arm images were obtained, and screw insertion pathways were planned accordingly. Image registration was performed using paired-point registration and iterative closest point methods. The accuracy of the robotic-guided pedicle screw insertion was assessed using 3-dimensional offset calculation and the Gertzbein-Robbins system (GRS).

RESULTS

A total of 448 screws were inserted in the 113 patients. The image registration success rate was 95.16%. The average error of entry offset was 2.86 mm, target offset was 2.48 mm, depth offset was 1.99 mm, and angular offset was 3.07°. According to the GRS grading system, 88.39% of the screws were classified as grade A, 9.60% as grade B, 1.56% as grade C, 0.22% as grade D, and 0.22% as grade E. Clinically acceptable screws (GRS grade A or B) accounted for 97.54% of the total, with no reported neurologic complications.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that pedicle screw insertion using the novel robot-assisted navigation method is both accurate and safe. Further prospective studies are necessary to explore the potential benefits of this robot-assisted technique in comparison to conventional approaches.

A Novel Free-hand Technique of Pedicle Screw Placement in the Lumbar Spine: Accuracy Evaluation and Preliminary Clinical Results

OBJECTIVE

Pedicle screw implantation is the most common technique to achieve stability during spinal surgeries. Current methods for locating the entry point do not have a quantified criteria and highly rely on the surgeons' experience. Therefore, we aim to propose a quantified pedicle screw placement technique in the lumbar spine and to investigate its accuracy and safety in clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study involving 110 patients who received spinal surgery in our hospital from August 2018 to August 2021. All patients included had herniation of a single lumbar disc and were consistently treated with posterior discectomy, inter-body fusion, and transpedicular internal fixation. For 54 patients in the observation group, the pedicle screws were placed with our technique, which is located at 4 mm below the superior edge of the transverse process in line with the lateral margin of the superior articular process. For 56 patients in the control group, pedicle screws were placed according to the traditional crista lambdoidalis method. Comparisons were made in terms of the operation time, blood loss, time for exposure, the accuracy of placement, and postoperative complications. Furthermore, we applied our method to 64 patients with indistinguishable crista lambdoidalis and evaluated the accuracy of screw placement and clinical outcomes according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in intraoperative bleeding, accuracy of placement, and postoperative complications between our technique and the traditional crista lambdoidalis method (P > 0.05). However, the exposure time before screw placement (12.8 ± 0.3 vs. 17.4 ± 0.3, P = 0.001) and the total surgery time (97.2 ± 1.9 vs 102.3 ± 0.9, P = 0.020) were significantly shortened with our method. Additionally, in cases with indistinguishable crista lambdoidalis, our technique showed satisfying accuracy, with 97.6% screws placed in appropriate trajectory on the first attempt and all screws eventually positioned in the safe zone according to the Gertzbein-Robbins grading. All patients experienced steady improvement after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Placing pedicle screws at 4 mm below the superior edge of the transverse process in line with the lateral margin of the superior articular process is a viable pedicle screw placement method. With this method, we observed a higher success rate and shorter operation time. In addition, this method can be applied in cases with indistinguishable crista lambdoidalis, and have satisfied success rate and clinical outcome.

Effects of tracer position on screw placement technique in robot-assisted posterior spine surgery: a case-control study

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted spine surgery is increasingly used in clinical work, and the installation of tracers as a key step in robotic surgery has rarely been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the potential effects of tracers on surgical outcomes in robot-assisted posterior spine surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients who underwent robotic-assisted posterior spine surgery at Beijing Shijitan Hospital over a 2-year period from September 2020 to September 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on the location of the tracer (iliac spine or vertebral spinous process) during robotic surgery and a case-control study was conducted to determine the potential impact of tracer location on the surgical procedure. Data analysis was performed using SPSS.25 statistical software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).

RESULTS

A total of 525 pedicle screws placed in 92 robot-assisted surgeries were analyzed. The rate of perfect screw positioning was 94.9% in all patients who underwent robot-assisted spine surgery (498/525). After grouping studies based on the location of tracers, we found there was no significant difference in age, sex, height and body weight between the two groups. The screw accuracy (p < 0.01)was significantly higher in the spinous process group compared to the iliac group (97.5% versus 92.6%), but the operation time (p = 0.09) was longer in comparison.

CONCLUSION

Placing the tracer on the spinous process as opposed to the iliac spine may result in longer procedure duration or increased bleeding, but enhanced satisfaction of screw placement.

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.

Development and Clinical Trial of a New Orthopedic Surgical Robot for Positioning and Navigation

Robot-assisted orthopedic surgery has great application prospects, and the accuracy of the robot is the key to its overall performance. The aim of this study was to develop a new orthopedic surgical robot to assist in spinal surgeries and to compare its feasibility and accuracy with the existing orthopedic robot. A new type of high-precision orthopedic surgical robot (Tuoshou) was developed. A multicenter, randomized controlled trial was carried out to compare the Tuoshou with the TiRobot (TINAVI Medical Technologies Co., Ltd., Beijing) to evaluate the accuracy and safety of their navigation and positioning. A total of 112 patients were randomized, and 108 patients completed the study. The position deviation of the Kirschner wire placement in the Tuoshou group was smaller than that in the TiRobot group (p = 0.014). The Tuoshou group was better than the TiRobot group in terms of the pedicle screw insertion accuracy (p = 0.016) and entry point deviation (p < 0.001). No differences were observed in endpoint deviation (p = 0.170), axial deviation (p = 0.170), sagittal deviation (p = 0.324), and spatial deviation (p = 0.299). There was no difference in security indicators. The new orthopedic surgical robot was highly accurate and optimized for clinical practice, making it suitable for clinical application.

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.

Comparison of accuracy and safety between second-generation TiRobot-assisted and free-hand thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement

Background

Robot-assisted spine surgery aims to improve the accuracy of screw placement. We compared the accuracy and safety between a novel robot and free hand in thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement.

Methods

Eighty patients scheduled to undergo robot-assisted (40 patients) and free-hand (40 patients) pedicle screw placement were included. The patients’ demographic characteristics, radiographic accuracy, and perioperative outcomes were compared. The accuracy of screw placement was based on cortical violation and screw deviation. Safety outcomes mainly included operative time, blood loss, revision, and complications.

Results

A total of 178 and 172 screws were placed in the robot-assisted and free-hand groups, respectively. The rate of perfect screw position (grade A) was higher in the robot-assisted group than in the free-hand group (91.0% vs. 75.6%; P < 0.001). The rate of clinically acceptable screw position (grades A and B) was also higher in the robot-assisted group than in the free-hand group (99.4% vs. 90.1%; P < 0.001). The robot-assisted group had significantly lower screw deviation than the free-hand group [1.46 (0.94, 1.95) mm vs. 2.48 (1.09, 3.74) mm, P < 0.001]. There was no robot abandonment in the robot-assisted group. No revision was required in any of the groups.

Conclusions

Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is more accurate than free-hand placement. The second-generation TiRobot–assisted thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement is an accurate and safe procedure.

Trial registration retrospectively registered