Spinal robotics in cervical spine surgery: a systematic review with key concepts and technical considerations

Hybrid-3D robotic suite in spine and trauma surgery - experiences in 210 patients

BACKGROUND

In modern Hybrid ORs, the synergies of navigation and robotics are assumed to contribute to the optimisation of the treatment in trauma, orthopaedic and spine surgery. Despite promising evidence in the area of navigation and robotics, previous publications have not definitively proven the potential benefits. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the potential benefit and clinical outcome of patients treated in a fully equipped 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR.

METHODS

Prospective data was collected (March 2022- March 2024) after implementation of a fully equipped 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR ("Robotic Suite") in the authors level 1 trauma centre. The OR includes a navigation unit, a cone beam CT (CBCT), a robotic arm and mixed reality glasses. Surgeries with different indications of the spine, the pelvis (pelvic ring and acetabulum) and the extremities were performed. Spinal and non-spinal screws were inserted. The collected data was analysed retrospectively. Pedicle screw accuracy was graded according to the Gertzbein and Robbins (GR) classification.

RESULTS

A total of n = 210 patients (118 m:92f) were treated in our 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR, with 1171 screws inserted. Among these patients, 23 patients (11.0%) arrived at the hospital via the trauma room with an average Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 25.7. There were 1035 (88.4%) spinal screws inserted at an accuracy rate of 98.7% (CI95%: 98.1-99.4%; 911 GR-A & 111 GR-B screws). The number of non-spinal screws were 136 (11.6%) with an accuracy rate of 99.3% (CI95%: 97.8-100.0%; 135 correctly placed screws). This resulted in an overall accuracy rate of 98.8% (CI95%: 98.2-99.4%). The robotic arm was used in 152 cases (72.4%), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was performed in 139 cases (66.2%) and wound infection occurred in 4 cases (1,9%). Overall, no revisions were needed.

CONCLUSION

By extending the scope of application, this study showed that interventions in a fully equipped 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR can be successfully performed not only on the spine, but also on the pelvis and extremities. In trauma, orthopaedics and spinal surgery, navigation and robotics can be used to perform operations with a high degree of precision, increased safety, reduced radiation exposure for the OR-team and a very low complication rate.

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.

Deep Learning Prediction of Cervical Spine Surgery Revision Outcomes Using Standard Laboratory and Operative Variables

BACKGROUND

Cervical spine procedures represent a major proportion of all spine surgery. Mitigating the revision rate following cervical procedures requires careful patient selection. While complication risk has successfully been predicted, revision risk has proven more challenging. This is likely due to the absence of granular variables in claims databases. The objective of this study was to develop a state-of-the-art model of revision prediction of cervical spine surgery using laboratory and operative variables.

METHODS

Using the Stanford Research Repository, patients undergoing a cervical spine procedure between 2016 and 2022 were identified (N = 3151), and recent laboratory values were collected. Patients were classified into separate cohorts by revision outcome and time frame. Machine and deep learning models were trained to predict each revision outcome from laboratory and operative variables.

RESULTS

Red blood cell count, hemoglobin, hematocrit, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, red blood cell distribution width, platelet count, carbon dioxide, anion gap, and calcium all were significantly associated with ≥1 revision cohorts. For the prediction of 3-month revision, the deep neural network achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.833. The model demonstrated increased performance for anterior versus posterior and arthrodesis versus decompression procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Our deep learning approach successfully predicted 3-month revision outcomes from demographic variables, standard laboratory values, and operative variables in a cervical spine surgery cohort. This work used standard laboratory values and operative codes as meaningful predictive variables for revision outcome prediction. The increased performance on certain procedures evidences the need for careful development and validation of one-size-fits-all risk scores for spine procedures.

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

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Advancements in Robotic-Assisted Spine Surgery

Applications and workflows around spinal robotics have evolved since these systems were first introduced in 2004. Initially approved for lumbar pedicle screw placement, the scope of robotics has expanded to instrumentation across different regions. Additionally, precise navigation can aid in tumor resection or spinal lesion ablation. Robot-assisted surgery can improve accuracy while decreasing radiation exposure, length of hospital stay, complication, and revision rates. Disadvantages include increased operative time, dependence on preoperative imaging among others. The future of robotic spine surgery includes automated surgery, telerobotic surgery, and the inclusion of machine learning or artificial intelligence in preoperative planning.

Spinal Robotics in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Systematic Review

Spinal robotics have the potential to improve the consistency of outcomes in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The objective of this paper is to assess the accuracy of pedicle and S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws placed with robotic guidance in ASD patients. PubMed Central, Google Scholar, and an institutional library database were queried until May 2023. Articles were included if they described ASD correction via robotic guidance and pedicle and/or S2AI screw accuracy. Articles were excluded if they described pediatric/adolescent spinal deformity or included outcomes for both ASD and non-ASD patients without separating the data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Primary endpoints were pedicle screw accuracy based on the Gertzbein-Robbins Scale and self-reported accuracy percentages for S2AI screws. Data were extracted for patient demographics, operative details, and perioperative outcomes and assessed using descriptive statistics. Five studies comprising 138 patients were included (mean age 66.0 years; 85 females). A total of 1,508 screws were inserted using robotic assistance (51 S2AI screws). Two studies assessing pedicle screws reported clinically acceptable trajectory rates of 98.7% and 96.0%, respectively. Another study reported a pedicle screw accuracy rate of 95.5%. Three studies reported 100% accuracy across 51 total S2AI screws. Eight total complications and 4 reoperations were reported. Current evidence supports the application of robotics in ASD surgery as safe and effective for placement of both screw types. However, due to the paucity of data, a comprehensive assessment of its incremental benefit over other techniques cannot be made. Further work using expanded cohorts is merited.

Safety and Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Cervical Screw Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted (RA) cervical screw placement with conventional freehand (FH) technique.

METHODS

Computer-based searches were conducted on various databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, the China Biology Medicine, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting the use of RA techniques for cervical screw placement and providing data on safety and accuracy outcomes. Primary outcome indicators focused on the accuracy of screw placement, while secondary outcome indicators included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, and radiation dose. Data from eligible studies were extracted and synthesized using a forest plot analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 312 patients (1233 screws) from 6 studies were included, with 148 patients (47.4% with 567 screws) in the RA group. Perfect screw accuracy, as categorized by Gertzbein-Robbins grade A, was significantly superior with RA surgery compared to FH technique. RA screw implantation significantly reduced complication rates, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospitalization, and radiation dose compared to the conventional FH group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in surgery time between the RA and FH groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RA surgery significantly improves the accuracy of cervical screw insertion and offers potential advantages in terms of reduced complications and blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and decreased radiation exposure. However, the impact on operative time remains uncertain. Further high-quality studies, including large-scale randomized controlled trials, are needed to strengthen the evidence base.

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.

Nationwide sample data analysis of additional surgery rate after anterior or posterior cervical spinal surgery

Surgical outcomes of degenerative cervical spinal disease are dependent on the selection of surgical techniques. Although a standardized decision cannot be made in an actual clinical setting, continued education is provided to standardize the medical practice among surgeons. Therefore, it is necessary to supervise and regularly update overall surgical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the rate of additional surgery between anterior and posterior surgeries for degenerative cervical spinal disease using the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort (NHIS-NSC) nationwide patient database. The NHIS-NSC is a population-based cohort with about a million participants. This retrospective cohort study included 741 adult patients (> 18 years) who underwent their first cervical spinal surgery for degenerative cervical spinal disease. The median follow-up period was 7.3 years. An event was defined as the registration of any type of cervical spinal surgery during the follow-up period. Event-free survival analysis was used for outcome analysis, and the following factors were used as covariates for adjustment: location of disease, sex, age, type of insurance, disability, type of hospital, Charles comorbidity Index, and osteoporosis. Anterior cervical surgery was selected for 75.0% of the patients, and posterior cervical surgery for the remaining 25.0%. Cervical radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis, hard disc, or soft disc was the primary diagnosis in 78.0% of the patients, and central spinal stenosis was the primary diagnosis in 22.0% of them. Additional surgery was performed for 5.0% of the patients after anterior cervical surgery and 6.5% of the patients after posterior cervical surgery (adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.74). The rates of additional surgery were not different between anterior and posterior cervical surgeries. The results would be helpful in evaluating current practice as a whole and adjusting the health insurance policy.