scholarly journals Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement for Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Comparative Cohort Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 2479-2487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun-Song Yang ◽  
Baorong He ◽  
Fang Tian ◽  
Tuan-Jiang Liu ◽  
Peng Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Comparative Cohort Study ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

scholarly journals Surgical Precision and Efficiency of a Novel Electromagnetic System Compared to a Robot-Assisted System in Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement of Endo-LIF

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110255
Author(s):  
Derong Xu ◽  
Xuexiao Ma ◽  
Lei Xie ◽  
Chuanli Zhou ◽  
Biao Kong
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Guide Wire ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Electromagnetic Navigation ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Electromagnetic Navigation System

Study Design: Retrospective database study. Objectives: To compare the accuracy and safety of 2 types of a computer-assisted navigation system for percutaneous pedicle screw placement during endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. Methods: From May 2019 to January 2020, data of 56 patients who underwent Endo-LIF with a robot-assisted system and with an electromagnetic navigation system were compared. The pedicles in all patients were subjected to postoperative CT scan to assess screw correction by measuring the perpendicular distance between the pedicle cortical wall and the screw surface. The registration and matching time, guide-wire insertion time, the entire surgery time, and X-ray exposure time were recorded. Results: In the robot-assisted group, 25 cases with 100 percutaneous pedicle screws were included, and the excellent and good rate was 95%. In the electromagnetic navigation group, 31 cases with 124 screws were included, and the excellent rate was 97.6%. There was no statistical difference between the two groups ( P > 0.05). The registration time and the total time for the surgery also showed no statistical differences ( P > 0.05). The main difference between the two groups was the guide-wire insertion time and the X-ray exposure time ( P < 0.05). Conclusions: Both electromagnetic navigation and robot-assisted are safe and efficient for percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Electromagnetic navigation system has obvious advantages over robot-assisted in terms of faster guide-wire placement and less X-ray exposure. Robot-assisted for percutaneous pedicle screw placement offers a preoperative planning system and a stable registration system, with obvious drawbacks of a strict training curve.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement Under Regional Anaesthesia: A Comparative Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shangju Gao ◽  
Jingchao Wei ◽  
Wenyi Li ◽  
Long Zhang ◽  
Can Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Regional Anaesthesia ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

Abstract Background: Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is usually performed under general anaesthesia to keep the body still. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the robot-assisted technique under regional anaesthesia with conventional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement under general anaesthesia in minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery.Methods: Patients who underwent robot-assisted percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) or fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) from December 2017 to February 2020 in a single centre were included. Based on the method of percutaneous pedicle screw placement used, patients were divided into the robot-assisted under regional anaesthesia (group RE-RO) and fluoroscopy-guided under general anaesthesia (group GE-FLU) groups. The primary outcome measures were screw accuracy and the incidence of facet joint violation (FJV). Secondary outcome measures included X-ray exposure and intraoperative adverse events.Results: Eighteen patients were included in group RE-RO, and 23 patients were included in group GE-FLU. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws (Gertzbein and Robbins grades A and B) were 94.4% and 91.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the percentages of clinically acceptable screws (p=0.44) or overall Gertzbein and Robbins screw accuracy grades (p=0.35). Only the top screws were included in the analysis of FJVs. The percentages of FJV (Babu grades 1, 2 and 3) were 5.6% and 28.3%, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.01). Overall, the FJV grades in group RE-RO were significantly better than those in group GE-FLU (p=0.009). The mean fluoroscopy time for each screw in group RE-RO was significantly shorter than that in group GE-FLU (group RE-RO, 5.4±1.9 seconds, group GE-FLU, 6.8±2.0 seconds; P=0.03). The intraoperative adverse events included 1 case of registration failure and 1 case of guide-wire dislodgment in group RE-RO as well as 2 cases of screw misplacement in group GE-FLU. No complications related to anaesthesia were observed.Conclusion: Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement under regional anaesthesia can be performed effectively and safely. The accuracy is comparable to the conventional technique. Moreover, this technique has the advantage of fewer FJVs and a lower radiation time.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement under Regional Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Shangju Gao ◽  
Jingchao Wei ◽  
Wenyi Li ◽  
Long Zhang ◽  
Can Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Anesthesia Group

Background. Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is usually performed under general anesthesia to keep the body still. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the robot-assisted technique under regional anesthesia with that of conventional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement under general anesthesia in minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery. Methods. This study recruited patients who underwent robot-assisted percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) or fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) between December 2017 and February 2020 at a single center. Based on the method of percutaneous pedicle screw placement used, patients were divided into the robot-assisted under regional anesthesia (group RE-RO) and fluoroscopy-guided under general anesthesia (group GE-FLU) groups. The primary outcome measures were screw accuracy and the incidence of facet joint violation (FJV). Secondary outcome measures included X-ray and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores which were used to evaluate the degree of the postoperative pain at 4 hours and on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. Intraoperative adverse events were also recorded. Results. Eighteen patients were included in group RE-RO, and 23 patients were included in group GE-FLU. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws (Gertzbein and Robbins grades A and B) were 94.4% and 91.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the percentages of clinically acceptable screws ( p = 0.44 ) or overall Gertzbein and Robbins screw accuracy grades ( p = 0.35 ). Only the top screws were included in the analysis of FJVs. The percentages of FJV (Babu grades 1, 2, and 3) were 5.6% and 28.3%, respectively. This difference was statistically significant ( p = 0.01 ). Overall, the FJV grades in group RE-RO were significantly better than those in group GE-FLU ( p = 0.009 ). The mean fluoroscopy time for each screw in group RE-RO was significantly shorter than that in group GE-FLU (group RE-RO: 5.4 ± 1.9 seconds and group GE-FLU: 6.8 ± 2.0 seconds; p = 0.03 ). The postoperative pain between the RE-RO and GE-FLU groups was not statistically significant. The intraoperative adverse events included 1 case of registration failure and 1 case of guide-wire dislodgment in group RE-RO, as well as 2 cases of screw misplacement in group GE-FLU. No complications related to anesthesia were observed. Conclusion. Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement under regional anesthesia can be performed effectively and safely. The accuracy is comparable to the conventional technique. Moreover, this technique has the advantage of fewer FJVs and a lower radiation time.

Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement: Evaluation of Accuracy of the First 100 Screws and Comparison with Cohort of Fluoroscopy-guided Screws

2020 ◽  
Vol 143 ◽  
pp. e492-e502
Author(s):  
Islam Fayed ◽  
Alexander Tai ◽  
Matthew Triano ◽  
Anousheh Sayah ◽  
Erini Makariou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

scholarly journals Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement in Thoracolumbar Surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 920-927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy K. T. Kam ◽  
Calvin Gan ◽  
Stefan Dimou ◽  
Mohammed Awad ◽  
Bhadu Kavar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

Accuracy and technical limits of percutaneous pedicle screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yann Philippe Charles ◽  
Yves Ntilikina ◽  
Arnaud Collinet ◽  
Sébastien Schuller ◽  
Julien Garnon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Thoracolumbar Spine ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document