Robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- PMID: 29032475
- DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5333-y
Robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Abstract
Purpose: Several studies have revealed that robot-assisted technique might improve the pedicle screw insertion accuracy, but owing to the limited sample sizes in the individual study reported up to now, whether or not robot-assisted technique is superior to conventional freehand technique is indefinite. Thus, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials to assess which approach is better.
Methods: Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science, CNKI and WanFang were systematically searched to identify potentially eligible articles. Main endpoints containing the accuracy of pedicle screw implantation and proximal facet joint violation were evaluated as risk ratio (RR) and the associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), while radiation exposure and surgical duration were presented as mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
Results: Six studies involving 158 patients (688 pedicle screws) in robot-assisted group and 148 patients (672 pedicle screws) in freehand group were identified matching our study. The Grade A accuracy rate in robot-assisted group was superior to freehand group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00, 1.06; P = 0.04), but the Grade A + B accuracy rate did not differ between the two groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99, 1.02; P = 0.29). With regard to proximal facet joint violation, the combined results suggested that robot-assisted group was associated with significantly fewer proximal facet joint violation than freehand group (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.55; P = 0.01). As was the radiation exposure, our findings suggested that robot-assisted technique could significantly reduce the intraoperative radiation time (MD - 12.38, 95% CI - 17.95, - 6.80; P < 0.0001) and radiation dosage (SMD - 0.64, 95% CI - 0.85, - 0.43; P < 0.00001). But the overall surgical duration was longer in robot-assisted group than conventional freehand group (MD 20.53, 95% CI 5.17, 35.90; P = 0.009).
Conclusions: The robot-assisted technique was associated with equivalent accuracy rate of pedicle screw implantation, fewer proximal facet joint violation, less intraoperative radiation exposure but longer surgical duration than freehand technique. Powerful evidence relies on more randomized controlled trials with high quality and larger sample size in the future.
Keywords: Meta-analysis; Pedicle screw; Robot assisted; Spine surgery; Systematic review.
Comment in
-
Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Qi Sun et al. concerning "Robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" by Gao ST, et al. (Eur Spine J; 2017: DOI 10.1007/s00586-017-5333-y).Eur Spine J. 2018 Apr;27(4):933-934. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5493-4. Epub 2018 Jan 30. Eur Spine J. 2018. PMID: 29383485 No abstract available.
-
Letter to the Editor concerning "Robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" by Gao ST et al. (Eur Spine J; 2017. DOI 10.1007/s00586-017-5333-y).Eur Spine J. 2018 Apr;27(4):931-932. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5483-6. Epub 2018 Feb 5. Eur Spine J. 2018. PMID: 29404694 No abstract available.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
