Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jun;97(22):e10970.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010970.

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

Yong Fan  1 , Jin Peng Du, Ji Jun Liu, Jia Nan Zhang, Huan Huan Qiao, Shi Chang Liu, Ding Jun Hao
Affiliations
Review

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

Yong Fan et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Jun.

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 < .01; odds ratio 95% "clinically acceptable" Confidence Interval: 1.17-2.08, P < .01).

Conclusions: There 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Funnel plot of included studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies. (B) Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study. (C) Scores of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for 4 cohort studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of “Perfect” pedicle screw insertion; (A): RA surgery versus FH surgery. (B): RA versus FH after removal of Keric et al[15] and Ringel et al[12]. RA = robotic-assisted; FH = fluoroscopy-guided.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Influence analysis of “Perfect” pedicle screw insertion.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of “Clinically acceptable” pedicle screw insertion.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of sub-analysis of “Clinically acceptable” pedicle screw insertion.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lau D, Terman SW, Patel R, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:356–61. - PubMed
    1. Aoude AA, Fortin M, Figueiredo R, et al. Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2015;24:990–1004. - PubMed
    1. Tian NF, Huang QS, Zhou P, et al. Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Spine J 2011;20:846–59. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Roser F, Tatagiba M, Maier G. Spinal robotics: current applications and future perspectives. Neurosurgery 2013;72(suppl):12–8. - PubMed
    1. Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, et al. Minimally invasive, Robotic-vs. Open Fluoroscopic-guided spinal instrumented fusions-a randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:353–8. - PubMed