Robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-institution, observational, case-control study

Comparison of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails and cohort studies

BACKGROUND

As an emerging technology in robot-assisted (RA) surgery, the potential benefits of its application in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) lack substantial support from current evidence.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate whether the RA TLIF is superior to FG TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed studies comparing RA versus FG TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases through July 2022 by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCO), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, VIP, and the Cochrane Library, as well as the references of published review articles. Both cohort studies (CSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Evaluation criteria included the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement, proximal facet joint violation (FJV), radiation exposure, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and surgical revision. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias and ROBINS-I Tool. Random-effects models were used, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) was employed as the effect measure. We conducted subgroup analyses based on surgical type, the specific robot system used, and the study design. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Our search identified 539 articles, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that RA had 1.03-folds higher "clinically acceptable" accuracy than FG (RR: 1.0382, 95% CI: 1.0273-1.0493). And RA had 1.12-folds higher "perfect" accuracy than FG group (RR: 1.1167, 95% CI: 1.0726-1.1626). In the case of proximal FJV, our results indicate a 74% reduction in occurrences for patients undergoing RA pedicle screw placement compared to those in the FG group (RR: 0.2606, 95%CI: 0.2063- 0.3293). Seventeen CSs and two RCTs reported the duration of time. The results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference between RA and FG group (SMD: 0.1111, 95%CI: -0.391-0.6131), but the results of RCTs suggest that the patients who underwent RA-TLIF need more surgery time than FG (SMD: 3.7213, 95%CI: 3.0756-4.3669). Sixteen CSs and two RCTs reported the EBL. The results suggest that the patients who underwent RA pedicle screw placement had fewer EBL than FG group (CSs: SMD: -1.9151, 95%CI: -3.1265-0.7036, RCTs: SMD: -5.9010, 95%CI: -8.7238-3.0782). For radiation exposure, the results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference in radiation time between RA and FG group (SMD: -0.5256, 95%CI: -1.4357-0.3845), but the patients who underwent RA pedicle screw placement had fewer radiation dose than FG group (SMD: -2.2682, 95%CI: -3.1953-1.3411). And four CSs and one RCT reported the number of revision case. The results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference in the number of revision case between RA and FG group (RR: 0.4087,95% CI 0.1592-1.0495). Our findings are limited by the residual heterogeneity of the included studies, which may limit the interpretation of the results.

CONCLUSION

In TLIF, RA technology exhibits enhanced precision in pedicle screw placement when compared to FG methods. This accuracy contributes to advantages such as the protection of adjacent facet joints and reductions in intraoperative radiation dosage and blood loss. However, the longer preoperative preparation time associated with RA procedures results in comparable surgical duration and radiation time to FG techniques. Presently, FG screw placement remains the predominant approach, with clinical surgeons possessing greater proficiency in its application. Consequently, the integration of RA into TLIF surgery may not be considered the optimal choice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023441600.

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.

Enhancing Single-Plane Fluoroscopy: A Self-Calibrating Bundle Adjustment for Distortion Modeling

Single-plane fluoroscopy systems with image intensifiers remain commonly employed in a clinical setting. The imagery they capture is vulnerable to several types of geometric distortions introduced by the system's components and their assembly as well as interactions with the local and global magnetic fields. In this study, the application of a self-calibrating bundle adjustment is investigated as a method to correct geometric distortions in single-plane fluoroscopic imaging systems. The resulting calibrated imagery is then applied in the quantitative analysis of diaphragmatic motion and potential diagnostic applications to hemidiaphragm paralysis. The calibrated imagery is further explored and discussed in its potential impact on areas of surgical navigation. This work was accomplished through the application of a controlled experiment with three separate Philips Easy Diagnost R/F Systems. A highly redundant (~2500 to 3500 degrees-of-freedom) and geometrically strong network of 18 to 22 images of a low-cost target field was collected. The target field comprised 121 pre-surveyed tantalum beads embedded on a 25.4 mm × 25.4 mm acrylic base plate. The modeling process resulted in the estimation of five to eight distortion coefficients, depending on the system. The addition of these terms resulted in 83-85% improvement in terms of image point precision (model fit) and 85-95% improvement in 3D object reconstruction accuracy after calibration. This study demonstrates significant potential in enhancing the accuracy and reliability of fluoroscopic imaging, thereby improving the overall quality and effectiveness of medical diagnostics and treatments.

Effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted (RA) technology has been widely used in spine surgery. This analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of RA minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and fluoroscopy-assisted (FA) MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases (DLSD). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched, and the outcomes included surgical parameters [operation time, blood loss, number of fluoroscopic, accuracy of pedicle screw position, superior facet joint violation (FJV)], and clinical indexes (Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, complications). Eleven articles involving 1066 patients were included. RA group produced better results than the FA group in operation time (WMD = - 6.59; 95% CI - 12.79 to - 0.40; P = 0.04), blood loss (WMD = - 34.81; 95% CI - 50.55 to - 19.08; P < 0.0001), number of fluoroscopic (WMD = - 18.24; 95% CI - 30.63 to - 5.85; P = 0.004), accuracy of pedicle screw position: Grade A (OR = 3.16; 95% CI 2.36-4.23; P < 0.00001), Grade B (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28-0.54; P < 0.00001), Grade C (OR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.54; P = 0.0002), and Grade D (OR = 0.17; 95% CI 0.03-0.98; P = 0.05), FJV: Grade 0 (OR = 3.27; 95% CI 1.34-8.02; P = 0.010), Grade 1 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.38; P < 0.00001), Grade 2 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.51; P = 0.0002), and Grade 3 (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.07-0.93; P = 0.04). But no significant differences in VAS score, ODI, JOA score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, and complications. These results demonstrate a significant improvement in the intraoperative course of the RA technique. However, RA-MIS-TLIF has not yet demonstrated significant advantages in terms of postoperative symptom relief and functional improvement. Future research and clinical practice should further explore the efficacy of this technique to optimize outcomes and quality of life for patients with DLSD. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023454405).

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.

Robotics in spine surgery: systematic review of literature

PURPOSE

Over 4.83 million spine surgery procedures are performed annually around the world. With the considerable caseload and the precision needed to achieve optimal spinal instrumentation, technical progress has helped to improve the technique's safety and accuracy with the development of peri-operative assistance tools. Contrary to other surgical applications already part of the standard of care, the development of robotics in spine surgery is still a novelty and is not widely available nor used. Robotics, especially when coupled with other guidance modalities such as navigation, seems to be a promising tool in our quest for accuracy, improving patient outcomes and reducing surgical complications. Robotics in spine surgery may also be for the surgeon a way to progress in terms of ergonomics, but also to respond to a growing concern among surgical teams to reduce radiation exposure.

METHOD

We present in this recent systematic review of the literature realized according to the PRISMA guidelines the place of robotics in spine surgery, reviewing the comparison to standard techniques, the current and future indications, the learning curve, the impact on radiation exposure, and the cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Seventy-six relevant original studies were identified and analyzed for the review.

CONCLUSION

Robotics has proved to be a safe help for spine surgery, both for the patient with a decrease of operating time and increase in pedicular screw accuracy, and for the surgical team with a decrease of radiation exposure. Medico-economic studies demonstrated that despite a high buying cost, the purchase of a robot dedicated for spine surgery is cost-effective resulting in lesser revision, lower infection, reduced length of stay, and shorter surgical procedure.