Robotic-Navigated Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement Has Less Facet Joint Violation Than Fluoroscopy-Guided Percutaneous Screws

Robotic-Assisted Versus Fluoroscopic-Guided Surgery on the Accuracy of Spine Pedicle Screw Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Spinal fusion is a common method by which surgeons decrease instability and deformity of the spinal segment targeted. Pedicle screws are vital tools in fusion surgeries and advancements in technology have introduced several modalities of screw placement. Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in robot-assisted (RA) versus fluoroscopic-guided (FG) techniques. The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed from January 2007 through to August 8, 2022, to identify relevant studies. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement was determined using the Gertzbein-Robbins (GR) classification system. Facet joint violation (FJV), total case radiation dosage, total case radiation time, total operating room (OR) time, and total case blood loss were collected. Twenty-one articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Successful screw accuracy (GR Grade A or B) was found to be 1.02 (95% confidence interval: 1.01 - 1.04) times more likely with the RA technique. In defining accuracy solely based on the GR Grade A criteria, screws placed with RA were 1.10 (95% confidence interval: 1.06 - 1.15) times more likely to be accurate. There was no significant difference between the two techniques with respect to blood loss (Hedges' g: 1.16, 95% confidence interval: -0.75 to 3.06) or case radiation time (Hedges' g: -0.34, 95% CI: -1.22 to 0.53). FG techniques were associated with shorter operating room times (Hedges' g: -1.03, 95% confidence interval: -1.76 to -0.31), and higher case radiation dosage (Hedges' g: 1.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.11 to 2.10). This review suggests that RA may slightly increase pedicle screw accuracy and decrease per-case radiation dosage compared to FG techniques. However, total operating times for RA cases are greater than those for FG cases.

Assessing the benefits of digital twins in neurosurgery: a systematic review

Digital twins are virtual replicas of their physical counterparts, and can assist in delivering personalized surgical care. This PRISMA guideline-based systematic review evaluates current literature addressing the effectiveness and role of digital twins in many stages of neurosurgical management. The aim of this review is to provide a high-quality analysis of relevant, randomized controlled trials and observational studies addressing the neurosurgical applicability of a variety of digital twin technologies. Using pre-specified criteria, we evaluated 25 randomized controlled trials and observational studies on the applications of digital twins, including navigation, robotics, and image-guided neurosurgeries. All 25 studies compared these technologies against usual surgical approaches. Risk of bias analyses using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (Rob 2) found "low" risk of bias in the majority of studies (23/25). Overall, this systematic review shows that digital twin applications have the potential to be more effective than conventional neurosurgical approaches when applied to brain and spinal surgery. Moreover, the application of these novel technologies may also lead to fewer post-operative complications.

Utility of a Navigated High-Speed Drill in Robotic-Assisted Screw Placement for Spine Surgery

Purpose To elucidate the utility of a navigated high-speed drill used after the version upgrade in surgeries assisted by a spinal robotics system. Methods The subjects were 166 patients who underwent screw placement using a spinal robotics system between April 2021 to July 2023. A significant change during the study was the introduction of a navigated high-speed drill in 80 post-upgrade cases, aimed at improving drilling accuracy. Screw accuracy was analyzed using the Gertzbein and Robbins classification on postoperative CT scans. Screws placed before (pre-upgrade group: 718 screws in 86 cases) and after the system upgrade (post-upgrade group: 747 screws in 80 cases) were compared in terms of perfect accuracy and deviation rates. Results There were no significant differences in demographics or surgical details between the two groups. No significant differences were observed in the overall perfect accuracy rate and deviation rate (2.4% pre-upgrade vs. 2.0% post-upgrade) between the two groups. For the percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS), the perfect accuracy rate was significantly higher, and the deviation rate was significantly lower in the post-upgrade group (26.1% pre-upgrade vs. 4.4% post-upgrade). Notably, the post-upgrade group achieved 100% perfect accuracy and 0% deviation for the cortical bone trajectory screw (CBT) technique. Conclusions The introduction of the navigated high-speed drill did not significantly alter the overall perfect accuracy or deviation rates for robotic-assisted screw placement. However, its use did demonstrate improved outcomes in specific techniques such as PPS and CBT, indicating its potential value in addressing skiving in robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgeries.

Safety of robotic-assisted screw placement for spine surgery: Experience from the initial 125 cases

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to evaluate the safety of robot-assisted screw placement in 125 cases after introducing a spinal robotics system and to identify the situations where deviation was likely to occur.

METHODS

The subjects were 125 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted screw placement using a spinal robotics system (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic) from April 2021 to January 2023. The 1048 screws placed with robotic assistance were evaluated. We investigated intraoperative adverse events of the robotics system and complications occurring within 30 days after surgery. We evaluated screw accuracy and deviation and compared them for vertebral levels, screw insertion methods (open traditional pedicle screw [Open-PS], cortical bone trajectory screw [CBT], percutaneous pedicle screw [PPS], and S2 alar iliac screw [S2AIS]), diagnosis, and phases of surgical cases.

RESULTS

The deviation rate of robotic-assisted screw placement for spine surgery was 2.2%. Complications were reoperation due to implant-related neurological deficit in 0.8% and surgical site infection in 0.8%. There was significant difference in the deviation rate between vertebral levels. The deviation rate of the T1-T4 level was high at 10.0%. There was significant difference in the deviation rate between Open-PS, CBT, PPS, and S2AIS. The PPSs had a high deviation rate of 10.3%. The deviation rates were not significantly different between patients with and without deformity. The deviation rate did not change depending on the experience of surgical cases, and the deviation rate was favorable from the onset.

CONCLUSION

Although the robotic-assisted screw placement was safe, we should be extra vigilant when placing screws in the upper thoracic region (deviation rate 10.0%) and when using PPSs (deviation rate 10.3%).

Advances in robotics and pediatric spine surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robotic-assisted surgical navigation for placement of pedicle screws is one of the most recent technological advancements in spine surgery. Excellent accuracy and reliability results have been documented in the adult population, but adoption of robotic surgical navigation is uncommon in pediatric spinal deformity surgery. Pediatric spinal anatomy and the specific pediatric pathologies present unique challenges to adoption of robotic assisted spinal deformity workflows. The purpose of this article is to review the safety, accuracy and learning curve data for pediatric robotic-assisted surgical navigation as well as to identify "best use" cases and technical tips.

RECENT FINDINGS

Robotic navigation has been demonstrated as a safe, accurate and reliable method to place pedicle screws in pediatric patients with a moderate learning curve. There are no prospective studies comparing robotically assisted pedicle screw placement with other techniques for screw placement, however several recent studies in the pediatric literature have demonstrated high accuracy and safety as well as high reliability. In addition to placement of pediatric pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine, successful and safe placement of screws in the pelvis and sacrum have also been reported with reported advantages over other techniques in the setting of high-grade spondylolisthesis as well as pelvic fixation utilizing S2-alar iliac (S2AI) screws.

SUMMARY

Early studies have demonstrated that robotically assisted surgical navigation for pedicle screws and pelvic fixation for S2AI screws is safe, accurate, and reliable in the pediatric population with a moderate learning curve.

Robot-assisted and augmented reality-assisted spinal instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of screw accuracy and outcomes over the last decade

OBJECTIVE

The use of technology-enhanced methods in spine surgery has increased immensely over the past decade. Here, the authors present the largest systematic review and meta-analysis to date that specifically addresses patient-centered outcomes, including the risk of inaccurate screw placement and perioperative outcomes in spinal surgeries using robotic instrumentation and/or augmented reality surgical navigation (ARSN).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases spanning the last decade (January 2011-November 2021) was performed to present all clinical studies comparing robot-assisted instrumentation and ARSN with conventional instrumentation techniques in lumbar spine surgery. The authors compared these two technologies as they relate to screw accuracy, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative time, length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, radiation dose and time, and the rate of reoperation.

RESULTS

A total of 64 studies were analyzed that included 11,113 patients receiving 20,547 screws. Robot-assisted instrumentation was associated with less risk of inaccurate screw placement (p < 0.0001) regardless of control arm approach (freehand, fluoroscopy guided, or navigation guided), fewer reoperations (p < 0.0001), fewer perioperative complications (p < 0.0001), lower EBL (p = 0.0005), decreased LOS (p < 0.0001), and increased intraoperative time (p = 0.0003). ARSN was associated with decreased radiation exposure compared with robotic instrumentation (p = 0.0091) and fluoroscopy-guided (p < 0.0001) techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, the pooled data suggest that technology-enhanced thoracolumbar instrumentation is advantageous for both patients and surgeons. As the technology progresses and indications expand, it remains essential to continue investigations of both robotic instrumentation and ARSN to validate meaningful benefit over conventional instrumentation techniques in spine surgery.

Intraoperative computed tomography-guided navigation versus fluoroscopy for single-position surgery after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

There are no reports comparing fluoroscopy and intraoperative computed tomography (CT) navigation in lateral single-position surgery (SPS) in terms of surgical outcomes or implant-related complications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use radiological evaluation to compare the incidence of instrument-related complications in SPS of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using fluoroscopy with that using CT navigation techniques. We evaluated 99 patients who underwent lateral SPS. Twenty-six patients had a percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) inserted under fluoroscopy (SPS-C group), and 73 patients had a PPS inserted under intraoperative CT navigation (SPS-O group). Average operation time was shorter in the SPS-C group than in the SPS-O group (88.4 ± 24.4 min versus 111.9 ± 35.3 min, respectively, P = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative thigh symptoms or reoperation rate. The screw insertion angle of the SPS-C group was smaller than that of the SPS-O group, but there was no significant difference in the rate of screw misplacement (4.6% versus 3.4%, respectively, P = 0.556). By contrast, facet joint violation (FJV) was significantly lower in the SPS-O group than in the SPS-C group (8.4% versus 21.3%, respectively, P < 0.001). While fluoroscopy was superior to intraoperative CT navigation in terms of mean surgery time, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of PPS insertion between fluoroscopy and intraoperative CT navigation. The advantage of intraoperative CT navigation over fluoroscopy is that it significantly decreases the occurrence of FJV in SPS.