Dataset Information

Accuracy of pedicle screw placement comparing robot-assisted technology and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided method in spine surgery: An updated meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A miniature spine-mounted robot has recently been introduced to further improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in spine surgery. However, the differences in accuracy between the robotic-assisted (RA) technique and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided (FH) method for pedicle screw placement are controversial. A meta-analysis was conducted to focus on this problem.

Methods

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies involving RA and FH and published before January 2017 were searched for using the Cochrane Library, Ovid, Web of Science, PubMed, and EMBASE databases. A total of 55 papers were selected. After the full-text assessment, 45 clinical trials were excluded. The final meta-analysis included 10 articles.

Results

The accuracy of pedicle screw placement within the RA group was significantly greater than the accuracy within the FH group (odds ratio 95%, "perfect accuracy" confidence interval: 1.38-2.07, P?ConclusionsThere are significant differences in accuracy between RA surgery and FH surgery. It was demonstrated that the RA technique is superior to the conventional method in terms of the accuracy of pedicle screw placement.

SUBMITTER: Fan Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6392558 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of pedicle screw placement comparing robot-assisted technology and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided method in spine surgery: An updated meta-analysis.

Fan Yong Y Du Jin Peng JP Liu Ji Jun JJ Zhang Jia Nan JN Qiao Huan Huan HH Liu Shi Chang SC Hao Ding Jun DJ

Medicine 20180601 22

<h4>Background</h4>A miniature spine-mounted robot has recently been introduced to further improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in spine surgery. However, the differences in accuracy between the robotic-assisted (RA) technique and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided (FH) method for pedicle screw placement are controversial. A meta-analysis was conducted to focus on this problem.<h4>Methods</h4>Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies involving RA and FH and pub ...[more]

PMID: 29851848

Similar Datasets

Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated differences in accuracy, operation time, and radiation exposure time between robot-assisted and freehand techniques for pedicle screw insertion. Two investigators independently searched for articles on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2012 to 2019. The final meta-analysis included seven RCTs. We compared the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, operation time, and radiation exposure time between robot-assisted and conventional freehand groups. Seven RCTs included 540 patients and placement of 2,476 pedicle screws, of which 1,220 were inserted using the robot-assisted technique and 1,256 were inserted using the conventional freehand technique. The pedicle screw positions were classified using the Gertzbein and Robbins classification (grade A-E). The combined results of Grade A [odds ratio (OR) =1.68; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.82-3.44; P=0.16), Grade A+B (OR =1.70; 95% CI: 0.47-6.13; P=0.42), and Grade C+D+E (OR =0.59; 95% CI: 0.16-2.12; P=0.42) for the accuracy rate revealed no significant difference between the two groups. Subgroup analysis results revealed that the TiRobot-assisted technique presented a significantly improved pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate compared with that of the conventional freehand technique, based on Grade A, Grade A+B, and Grade C+D+E classifications. The SpineAssist-assisted technique presented an inferior pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate compared with that of the conventional freehand technique, based on Grade A, Grade A+B, and Grade C+D+E classifications. No difference between the Renaissance-assisted and conventional freehand techniques was noted for pedicle screw insertion accuracy rates, based on both Grade A (OR =1.58; 95% CI: 0.85-2.96; P=0.15), Grade A+B (OR =2.20; 95% CI: 0.39-12.43; P=0.37), and Grade C+D+E (OR =0.45; 95% CI: 0.08-2.56; P=0.37) classifications. Regarding operation time, robot-assisted surgery had significantly longer operation time than conventional freehand surgery. The robot-assisted group had significantly shorter radiation exposure time. Regarding the pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate, the TiRobot-assisted technique was superior, the SpineAssist-assisted technique was inferior, and Renaissance was similar to the conventional freehand technique.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the rates and risk factors of pedicle screw placement accuracy and the proximal facet joint violation (FJV) using TINAVI robot-assisted technique.MethodsPatients with thoracolumbar fractures or degenerative diseases were retrospectively recruited from June 2018 and June 2020. The pedicle penetration and proximal FJV were compared in different instrumental levels to identify the safe and risk segments during insertion. Moreover, the factors were also assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 72 patients with 332 pedicle screws were included in the current study. The optimal and clinically acceptable screw positions were 85.8% and 93.4%. Of the 332 screws concerning the intra-pedicular accuracy, 285 screws (85.8%) were evaluated as Grade A according to the Gertzbein and Robbins scale, with the remaining 25 (7.6%), 10 (3.0%), 6 (1.8%), and 6 screws (1.8%) as Grades B, C, D, and E. Moreover, in terms of the proximal FJV, 255 screws (76.8%) screws were assessed as Grade 0 according to the Babu scale, with the remaining 34 (10.3%), 22 (6.6%), and 21 screws (6.3%) as Grades 1, 2, and 3. Furthermore, the univariate analysis showed significantly higher rate of penetration for patients with age < 61 years old, sex of female, thoracolumbar insertion, shorter distance from skin to insertion point, and smaller facet angle. Meanwhile, the patients with the sex of female, BMI < 25.9, grade I spondylolisthesis, lumbosacral insertion, longer distance from skin to insertion point, and larger facet angle had a significantly higher rate of proximal FJV. The outcomes of multivariate analyses showed that sex of male (adjusted OR 0.320, 95% CI 0.140-0.732; p = 0.007), facet angle ≥ 45° (adjusted OR 0.266, 95% CI 0.090-0.786; p = 0.017), distance from skin to insertion point ≥ 4.5 cm (adjusted OR 0.342, 95% CI 0.134-0.868; p = 0.024), and lumbosacral instrumentation (adjusted OR 0.227, 95% CI 0.091-0.566; p = 0.001) were independently associated with intra-pedicular accuracy; the L5 insertion (adjusted OR 2.020, 95% CI 1.084-3.766; p = 0.027) and facet angle ≥ 45° (adjusted OR 1.839, 95% CI 1.026-3.298; p = 0.041) were independently associated with the proximal FJV.ConclusionTINAVI robot-assisted technique was associated with a high rate of pedicle screw placement and a low rate of proximal FJV. This new technique showed a safe and precise performance for pedicle screw placement in spinal surgery. Facet angle ≥ 45° is independently associated with both the intra-pedicular accuracy and proximal FJV.

Project description:BackgroundTraditional paired meta-analyses have yielded inconsistent results for the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement due to the high heterogeneity within studies. This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement.MethodsThe Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with no language limitations from inception to Jan 4, 2022. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results. The main outcomes were accuracy of pedicle screw placement, proximal facet joint violation, and complications. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022301417).Findings26 trials including 2046 participants evaluating robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement were included in this study. Our pooled results showed that Renaissance (OR 2.86; [95% CI 1.79 to 4.57]) and TiRobot (OR 3.10; [95% CI 2.19 to 4.40]) yielded higher rates of perfect pedicle screw insertion (Grades A) than the conventional freehand technique. Renaissance (OR 2.82; [95% CI 1.51 to 5.25]) and TiRobot (OR 4.58; [95% CI 2.65 to 7.89]) yielded higher rates of clinically acceptable pedicle screw insertion (Grades A+B). However, ROSA, SpineAssist, and Orthobot were not associated with higher perfect pedicle screw insertion and clinically acceptable pedicle screw insertion rates. Robot-assisted techniques were associated with low rates of proximal facet joint violation (OR 0.18; [95% CI 0.10 to 0.32]; I2:9.55%) and overall complications (OR 0.38; [95% CI 0.23 to 0.63]; I2:27.05%). Moreover, robot-assisted techniques were associated with lower radiation doses (MD -14.38; [95% CI -25.62 to -3.13]; I2:100.00%).InterpretationOur findings suggest that only Renaissance and TiRobot systems are associated with high accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement. Robotic-assisted techniques hold great promise in spinal surgery due to their safety and effectiveness.FundingThis work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81871818), Tangdu Hospital Seed Talent Program (Fei-Long Wei) and Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (No.2019JM-265).

Dataset Information

Accuracy of pedicle screw placement comparing robot-assisted technology and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided method in spine surgery: An updated meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

Accuracy of pedicle screw placement comparing robot-assisted technology and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided method in spine surgery: An updated meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets