Dataset Information

Association of robot-assisted techniques with the accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement: A network pooling analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Traditional 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.

Methods

The 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).

Findings

26 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%).

Interpretation

Our 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.

Funding

This 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).

SUBMITTER: Wei FL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9193845 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of robot-assisted techniques with the accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement: A network pooling analysis.

Wei Fei-Long FL Gao Quan-You QY Heng Wei W Zhu Kai-Long KL Yang Fan F Du Rui-Ming RM Zhou Cheng-Pei CP Qian Ji-Xian JX Yan Xiao-Dong XD

EClinicalMedicine 20220609

<h4>Background</h4>Traditional 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.<h4>Methods</h4>The 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% ...[more]

PMID: 35706496

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designRetrospective Multi-Center.ObjectiveTo investigate the factors involved in, and their relative contributions to, the overall accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement.Summary of background dataRobot-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.MethodsRadiographic and clinical data of three centers were pooled. Pre- and post-operative 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- 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).ResultsThe 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%).ConclusionThe 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- or screw-related variables due to the robustness of the robotic navigation system used in this study.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Association of robot-assisted techniques with the accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement: A network pooling analysis.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Association of robot-assisted techniques with the accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement: A network pooling analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets