Proficiency Development and Learning Curve in Robot-Assisted Spine Surgery Using the ExcelsiusGPS® System: Experience From a Single Institution

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Study Objectives: Robot-assisted spine surgery (RASS) is a rapidly evolving technique with potential benefits for improving surgical outcomes. A number of studies on RASS learning curve have focused on early iterations of the Mazor robot. Limited research exists on the learning curve associated with using the Globus Medical ExcelsiusGPS® system. In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate the learning curve of RASS using the ExcelsiusGPS® system at a single institution.

METHODS

A total of 95 patients (541 screws) who underwent RASS between 2021 and 2022 were included. Variables including operative time, robot registration time, screw placement time, fluoroscopy utilization, and complications were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and two-sample t-tests.

RESULTS

The average operative time significantly decreased after the first 14 cases, indicating a learning curve. However, no significant improvement was observed in robot registration time. Notably, screw placement time significantly improved after approximately 13 cases. When controlling for the number of levels fused, the trends remained consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed the presence of a learning curve in RASS using the ExcelsiusGPS® system and demonstrated rapid proficiency development. Our findings highlight the relatively quick learning curve of 1 RASS system.

Is There a Difference in Screw Accuracy, Robot Time Per Screw, Robot Abandonment, and Radiation Exposure Between the Mazor X and the Renaissance? A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 1179 Robot-Assisted Screws

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective single-cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes/complications of 2 robotic systems for spine surgery.

METHODS

Adult patients (≥18-years-old) who underwent robot-assisted spine surgery from 2016-2019 were assessed. A propensity score matching (PSM) algorithm was used to match Mazor X to Renaissance cases. Preoperative CT scan for planning and an intraoperative O-arm for screw evaluation were preformed. Outcomes included screw accuracy, robot time/screw, robot abandonment, and radiation. Screw accuracy was measured using Vitrea Core software by 2 orthopedic surgeons. Screw breach was measured according to the Gertzbein/Robbins classification.

RESULTS

After PSA, a total of 65 patients (Renaissance: 22 vs. X: 43) were included. Patient/operative factors were similar between robot systems (P > .05). The pedicle screw accuracy was similar between robots (Renaissance: 1.1%% vs. X: 1.3%, P = .786); however, the S2AI screw breach rate was significantly lower for the X (Renaissance: 9.5% vs. X: 1.2%, P = .025). Robot time per screw was not statistically different (Renaissance: 4.6 minutes vs. X: 3.9 minutes, P = .246). The X was more reliable with an abandonment rate of 2.3% vs. Renaissance:22.7%, P = .007. Radiation exposure were not different between robot systems. Non-robot related complications including dural tear, loss of motor/sensory function, and blood transfusion were similar between robot systems.

CONCLUSION

This is the first comparative analyses of screw accuracy, robot time/screw, robot abandonment, and radiation exposure between the Mazor X and Renaissance systems. There are substantial improvements in the X robot, particularly in the perioperative planning processes, which likely contribute to the X's superiority in S2AI screw accuracy by nearly 8-fold and robot reliability by nearly 10-fold.

Robot-assisted versus navigated transpedicular spine fusion: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between a robot-assisted versus a navigated transpedicular fusion technique.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included patients who underwent transpedicular posterior fusion of the spine due to trauma, pyogenic spondylodiscitis and osteoporosis. Surgery was done either with a robot-assisted or a percutaneous navigated transpedicular fusion technique. The outcome analysis included the duration of surgery, the radiation exposure, the postoperative screw position and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were operated and 491 screws were analysed. No statistical difference was seen in the applied cumulative effective radiation dose per patient. The radiological assessment revealed a more accurate screw placement with robot assistance. A learning curve could be observed in robot-assisted fusion.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted and navigated transpedicular fusion techniques are both effective and safe. Robot-assisted transpedicular spine fusion goes along with higher placement accuracy but its implementation needs an adequate learning curve.

Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement in Robot-Assisted Surgery: A Multicenter Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective multicenter.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to investigate the factors involved in, and their relative contributions to, the overall accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Robot-assisted surgery has reportedly resulted in greater accuracy for placement of pedicle screws than conventional methods. There are many potential factors affecting the accuracy of pedicle screws placed with a robot. No study has investigated these factors in a robust way.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiographic and clinical data of three centers were pooled. Preoperative and postoperative computerized tomographies were obtained by all three centers to assess the accuracy of the placed screws. The primary outcome measured was accuracy of pedicle screws placed with the robot. The authors performed a multivariate regression analysis to determine the significant patient-related and screw-related variables and their relative contribution to the overall accuracy. In addition, an ordinal regression analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of different variables on accuracy of robot-placed screws graded by Gertzbein-Robbins grading system (GRS).

RESULTS

The total contribution of all studied variables to overall accuracy variation as measured by offsets between the placed and planned screws was only 18%. Obesity, long constructs, female gender, surgeon, and vertebral levels were among the factors that had small contributions to the different screw offsets. For GRS grades, significant variables were gender (Log odds: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38-0.85), age (Log odds: 0.02, 95% CI: 0.01-0.03), length of constructs (Log odds: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02-0.11), screw diameter (Log odds: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.39-0.71), and length of the screws (Log odds: 0.03, 95% CI: 0.01-0.05). However, these variables too, regardless of their significant association with the accuracy of placed screws, had little contribution to overall variability of accuracy itself (only about 7%).

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of screws placed with robotic assistance, as graded by GRS or measured offsets between planned and placed screw trajectories, is minimally affected by different patient-related or screw-related variables due to the robustness of the robotic navigation system used in this study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

What Is the Comparison in Robot Time per Screw, Radiation Exposure, Robot Abandonment, Screw Accuracy, and Clinical Outcomes Between Percutaneous and Open Robot-Assisted Short Lumbar Fusion?: A Multicenter, Propensity-Matched Analysis of 310 Patients

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the robot time/screw, radiation exposure, robot abandonment, screw accuracy, and 90-day outcomes between robot-assisted percutaneous and robot-assisted open approach for short lumbar fusion (1- and 2-level).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is conflicting literature on the superiority of robot-assisted minimally invasive spine surgery to open techniques. A large, multicenter study is needed to further elucidate the outcomes and complications between these two approaches.

METHODS

We included adult patients (≥18 yrs old) who underwent robot-assisted short lumbar fusion surgery from 2015 to 2019 at four independent institutions. A propensity score matching algorithm was employed to control for the potential selection bias between percutaneous and open surgery. The minimum follow-up was 90 days after the index surgery.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 310 patients remained. The mean (standard deviation) Charlson comorbidity index was 1.6 (1.5) and 53% of patients were female. The most common diagnoses included high-grade spondylolisthesis (grade >2) (48%), degenerative disc disease (22%), and spinal stenosis (25%), and the mean number of instrumented levels was 1.5(0.5). The operative time was longer in the open (198 min) versus the percutaneous group (167 min, P value = 0.007). However, the robot time/screw was similar between cohorts (P value > 0.05). The fluoroscopy time/ screw for percutaneous (14.4 s) was longer than the open group (10.1 s, P value = 0.021). The rates for screw exchange and robot abandonment were similar between groups (P value > 0.05). The estimated blood loss (open: 146 mL vs. percutaneous: 61.3 mL, P value < 0.001) and transfusion rate (open: 3.9% vs. percutaneous: 0%, P value = 0.013) were greater for the open group. The 90-day complication rate and mean length of stay were not different between cohorts (P value > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous robot-assisted spine surgery may increase radiation exposure, but can achieve a shorter operative time and lower risk for intraoperative blood loss for short-lumbar fusion. Percutaneous approaches do not appear to have an advantage for other short-term postoperative outcomes. Future multicenter studies on longer fusion surgeries and the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes are needed.Level of Evidence: 3.