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:PurposePedicle screw fixation in the upper cervical spine is a difficult and high-risk procedure. The screw is difficult to place rapidly and accurately, and can lead to serious injury of spinal cord or vertebral artery. The aim of this study was to design an individualized 3D printing navigation template for pedicle screw fixation in the upper cervical spine.MethodsUsing CT thin slices data, we employed computer software to design the navigation template for pedicle screw fixation in the upper cervical spine (atlas and axis). The upper cervical spine models and navigation templates were produced by 3D printer with equal proportion, two sets for each case. In one set (Test group), pedicle screws fixation were guided by the navigation template; in the second set (Control group), the screws were fixed under fluoroscopy. According to the degree of pedicle cortex perforation and whether the screw needed to be refitted, the fixation effects were divided into 3 types: Type I, screw is fully located within the vertebral pedicle; Type II, degree of pedicle cortex perforation is <1 mm, but with good internal fixation stability and no need to renovate; Type III, degree of pedicle cortex perforation is >1 mm or with the poor internal fixation stability and in need of renovation. Type I and Type II were acceptable placements; Type III placements were unacceptable.ResultsA total of 19 upper cervical spine and 19 navigation templates were printed, and 37 pedicle screws were fixed in each group. Type I screw-placements in the test group totaled 32; Type II totaled 3; and Type III totaled 2; with an acceptable rate of 94.60%. Type I screw placements in the control group totaled 23; Type II totaled 3; and Type III totaled 11, with an acceptable rate of 70.27%. The acceptability rate in test group was higher than the rate in control group. The operation time and fluoroscopic frequency for each screw were decreased, compared with control group.ConclusionThe individualized 3D printing navigation template for pedicle screw fixation is easy and safe, with a high success rate in the upper cervical spine surgery.

Project description:Ascertaining the accuracy of the pedicle screw (PS) trajectories is important as PS malpositioning can cause critical complications. We aimed to determine the angle range over which estimation is unreliable; build a low-cost PS placement support system that uses an inertial measurement unit (IMU) to enable the monitoring of surgical tools and PS trajectories, and determine the situations where IMU support would be most beneficial. In PS insertion experiments, we used cadaver samples that included lumbar porcine spines. Computed tomography images obtained before and after PS insertion were viewed. Offsets between the planned and implanted PS trajectories in the freehand and IMU-assisted groups were analyzed. The PS cortical bone breaches were classified according to the Gertzbein and Robbins criteria (GRC). Added head-down tilted sample experiments were repeated wherein we expected a decreased rostro-caudal rotational accuracy of the PS according to the angle estimation ability results. Evaluation of the PS trajectory accuracy revealed no significant advantage of IMU-assisted rostro-caudal rotational accuracy versus freehand accuracy. According to the GRC, IMU assistance significantly increased the rate of clinically acceptable PS positions (RoCA) than the freehand technique. In the head-down tilted sample experiments, IMU assist provided increased accuracies with both rostro-caudal and medial rotational techniques when compared with the freehand technique. In the freehand group, RoCA was significantly decreased in samples with rostral tilting relative to that in the samples without. However, In the IMU-assisted group, no significant difference in RoCA between the samples with and without head-down tilting was observed. Even when the planned PS medial and/or rostro-caudal rotational angle was relatively large and difficult to reproduce manually, IMU-support helped maintain the PS trajectory accuracy and positioning safety. IMU assist in PS placement was more beneficial, especially for larger rostro-caudal and/or medial rotational pedicle angles.

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