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
. 2021 Mar;18(1):98-105.
doi: 10.14245/ns.2040294.147. Epub 2020 Dec 14.

Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Victor E Staartjes  1   2   3 , Bianca Battilana  3 , Marc L Schröder  1
Affiliations

Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Victor E Staartjes et al. Neurospine. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

Objective: There have been no clinical studies comparing different robotic techniques. We compare minimally invasive, robot-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RGTLIF) and mini-open robot-guided posterior lumbar interbody fusion (RG-PLIF).

Methods: Using data from a prospective institutional registry, we identified 38 patients who underwent RG-PLIF. Propensity score matching using a nearest-neighbor algorithm was implemented to select RG-TLIF controls. Twelve-month patient-reported outcome measures are presented. A reduction of ≥ 30% from baseline was defined as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).

Results: Among the 76 included patients, there was no difference between RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF in surgical time (132.3 ± 29.4 minutes vs. 156.5 ± 53.0 minutes, p = 0.162), length of stay (55.9 ± 20.0 hours vs. 57.2 ± 18.8 hours, p = 0.683), and radiation dose area product (310.6 ± 126.1 mGy × cm2 vs. 287.9 ± 90.3 mGy × cm2, p = 0.370). However, while there was no difference among the 2 groups in terms of raw postoperative patient-reported outcome measures scores (all p > 0.05), MCID in leg pain was greater for RG-PLIF (55.3% vs. 78.9%, p = 0.028), and MCID in Oswestry Disability Index was greater for RG-TLIF (92.1% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.009). There was no difference concerning back pain (81.6% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.185).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that both RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF are viable and equally effective techniques in robotic spine surgery.

Keywords: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; Robot; Robotics; Spinal fusion; Spondylolisthesis; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Illustration of percentage change scores in the 3 main patient-reported outcome measures, stratified by TLIF/PLIF status. The dashed horizontal line represents a -30% change score, which defined the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in this study according to Ostelo et al. [16] TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; VAS, visual analogue scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Goldstein CL, Phillips FM, Rampersaud YR. Comparative effectiveness and economic evaluations of open versus minimally invasive posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41 Suppl 8:S74–89. - PubMed
    1. Mummaneni PV, Bisson EF, Kerezoudis P, et al. Minimally invasive versus open fusion for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43:E11. - PubMed
    1. Härtl R, Lam KS, Wang J, et al. Worldwide survey on the use of navigation in spine surgery. World Neurosurg. 2013;79:162–72. - PubMed
    1. Schröder ML, Staartjes VE. Revisions for screw malposition and clinical outcomes after robot-guided lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42:E12. - PubMed
    1. Bono CM, Lee CK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:455–63. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources