Skip to main content
Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics 6/2021

28.09.2020 | Original Paper

Comparison of robot-assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement for lumbar revision surgery

verfasst von: Jia-Nan Zhang, Yong Fan, Xin He, Tuan-Jiang Liu, Ding-Jun Hao

Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics | Ausgabe 6/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw implantation is a safe and effective method in lumbar surgery, but it still remains controversial in lumbar revision surgery. This study evaluated the clinical safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus freehand pedicle screw implantation in lumbar revision surgery.

Methods

This was a retrospective study. From January 2018 to December 2019, 81 patients underwent posterior lumbar revision surgery in our hospital. Among them, 39 patients underwent revision surgery performed with robot-assisted pedicle screw implantation (Renaissance robotic system), whereas the remaining 42 patients underwent traditional freehand pedicle screw implantation. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and X-ray before revision surgery. The sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, operative time, blood loss, operative segments, intra-operative fluoroscopy time, and complications were compared between the two groups. The accuracy of pedicle screw implantation was measured on CT scans based on Gertzbein Robbins grading, and the invasion of superior level facet joint was evaluated by Babu’s method.

Results

There was no statistical difference about the baseline between the two groups (P > 0.05). Although there were no significant differences in operative time and complications between the two groups (P > 0.05), the robot-assisted group had significantly less intra-operative blood loss and shorter intra-operative fluoroscopy times than the freehand group (P < 0.05). In the robot-assisted group, a total of 267 screws were inserted, which were marked as grade A in 250, grade B in 13, grade C in four, and no grade D or E in any screw. In terms of invasion of superior level facet joint, a total of 78 screws were inserted in the robot-assisted group, which were marked as grade 0 in 73, grade 1 in four, grade 2 in one, and grade 3 in zero. By comparison, 288 screws were placed in total in the freehand group, which were rated as grade A in 251, grade B in 28, grade C in eight, grade D in one, and no grade E in any screw. A total of 82 superior level facet joint screws were inserted in freehand group, which were marked as grade 0 in 62, grade one in 18, grade 2 in two, and grade 3 in zero. The robot-assisted technique was statistically superior to the freehand method in the accuracy of screw placement (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with freehand screw implantation, in lumbar revision surgery, the Renaissance robot had higher accuracy and safety of pedicle screw implantation, fewer superior level facet joint violations, and less intra-operative blood loss and intra-operative fluoroscopy time.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Wu M-H, Dubey NK, Li Y-Y, Lee C-Y, Cheng C-C, Shi C-S, Huang T-J (2017) Comparison of minimally invasive spine surgery using intraoperative computed tomography integrated navigation, fluoroscopy, and conventional open surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis: a prospective registry-based cohort study. Spine J 17:1082–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.002CrossRefPubMed Wu M-H, Dubey NK, Li Y-Y, Lee C-Y, Cheng C-C, Shi C-S, Huang T-J (2017) Comparison of minimally invasive spine surgery using intraoperative computed tomography integrated navigation, fluoroscopy, and conventional open surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis: a prospective registry-based cohort study. Spine J 17:1082–1090. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​spinee.​2017.​04.​002CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Han X, Tian W, Liu Y, Liu B, He D, Sun Y, Han X, Fan M, Zhao J, Xu Y, Zhang Q (2019) Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18487 Han X, Tian W, Liu Y, Liu B, He D, Sun Y, Han X, Fan M, Zhao J, Xu Y, Zhang Q (2019) Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine:1–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3171/​2018.​10.​SPINE18487
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 15:11–14CrossRef Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 15:11–14CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Babu R, Mehta AI, Brown CR, Isaacs RE, Bagley CA, Gottfried ON (2012) Comparison of superior level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Neurosurgery 12(9):S47–S47 Babu R, Mehta AI, Brown CR, Isaacs RE, Bagley CA, Gottfried ON (2012) Comparison of superior level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Neurosurgery 12(9):S47–S47
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Devito DP, Kaplan L, Dietl R, Pfeiffer M, Horne D, Silberstein B, Hardenbrook M, Kiriyanthan G, Barzilay Y, Bruskin A, Sackerer D, Alexandrovsky V, Stüer C, Burger R, Maeurer J, Donald GD, Schoenmayr R, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Schmieder K, Pechlivanis I, Kim I-S, Meyer B, Shoham M (2010) Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with SpineAssist surgical robot: retrospective study. Spine 35:2109–2115. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d323abCrossRefPubMed Devito DP, Kaplan L, Dietl R, Pfeiffer M, Horne D, Silberstein B, Hardenbrook M, Kiriyanthan G, Barzilay Y, Bruskin A, Sackerer D, Alexandrovsky V, Stüer C, Burger R, Maeurer J, Donald GD, Schoenmayr R, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Schmieder K, Pechlivanis I, Kim I-S, Meyer B, Shoham M (2010) Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with SpineAssist surgical robot: retrospective study. Spine 35:2109–2115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e3181d323ab​CrossRefPubMed
11.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim H-J, Jung W-I, Chang B-S, Lee C-K, Kang K-T, Yeom JS (2017) A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. Int J Med Robot 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1779 Kim H-J, Jung W-I, Chang B-S, Lee C-K, Kang K-T, Yeom JS (2017) A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. Int J Med Robot 13(3). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​rcs.​1779
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Khan MH, Rihn J, Steele G, Davis R, Lee JY (2006) Postoperative management protocol for incidental dural tears during degenerative lumbar spine surgery: a review of 3,183 consecutive degenerative lumbar cases. Spine 31:2609–2613CrossRef Khan MH, Rihn J, Steele G, Davis R, Lee JY (2006) Postoperative management protocol for incidental dural tears during degenerative lumbar spine surgery: a review of 3,183 consecutive degenerative lumbar cases. Spine 31:2609–2613CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison of robot-assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement for lumbar revision surgery
verfasst von
Jia-Nan Zhang
Yong Fan
Xin He
Tuan-Jiang Liu
Ding-Jun Hao
Publikationsdatum
28.09.2020
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
International Orthopaedics / Ausgabe 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04825-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2021

International Orthopaedics 6/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.