Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement and Clinical Outcomes of Robot-assisted Technique Versus Conventional Freehand Technique in Spine Surgery From Nine Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-analysis
- PMID: 31404053
- DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003193
Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement and Clinical Outcomes of Robot-assisted Technique Versus Conventional Freehand Technique in Spine Surgery From Nine Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-analysis
Abstract
Study design: A meta-analysis.
Objective: To investigate whether robot-assisted techniques are superior to conventional techniques in terms of the accuracy of pedicle screw placement and clinical indexes.
Summary of background data: Robot-assisted techniques are increasingly applied to spine surgery to reduce the rate of screw misplacement. However, controversy about the superiority of robot-assisted techniques over conventional freehand techniques remains.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for potentially eligible articles. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software and subgroup analyses were performed based on the robot type for the accuracy of pedicle screw placement.
Results: Nine randomized controlled trials with 696 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the robot-assisted technique was more accurate in pedicle screw placement than the freehand technique. Subgroup analyses showed that the TINAVI robot-assisted technique was more accurate in screw positions Grade A (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14), Grade B (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.75), and Grades C + D + E (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.45) than the freehand technique, whereas the Renaissance robot-assisted technique showed the same accuracy as the freehand technique in screw positions Grade A, Grade B, and Grades C + D + E. Furthermore, the robot-assisted techniques showed equivalent postoperative stay, visual analogue scale scores, and Oswestry disability index scores to those of the freehand technique and shorter intraoperative radiation exposure time, fewer radiation dose and proximal facet violations but longer surgical time than the freehand technique.
Conclusion: The robot-assisted technique is more accurate in pedicle screw placement than the freehand technique. And TINAVI robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is a more accurate alternative to conventional techniques and the Renaissance robot-assisted procedure.
Level of evidence: 1.
References
-
- Tan SH, Teo EC, Chua HC. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese Singaporeans. Eur Spine J 2004; 13:137–146.
-
- Panjabi MM, Takata K, Goel V, et al. Thoracic human vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991; 16:888–901.
-
- Alexander M, Renee P, Babuska JM, et al. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 20:196–203.
-
- Belmont PJ Jr, Klemme WR, Dhawan A, et al. In vivo accuracy of thoracic pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26:2340–2346.
-
- Welch WC, Subach BR, Pollack IF, et al. Frameless stereotactic guidance for surgery of the upper cervical spine. Neurosurgery 1997; 40:958–963.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
