Robotic spine surgery compared with fluoroscopic-assisted surgery: advantages, disadvantages, future perspectives
- PMID: 40783908
- DOI: 10.1007/s11701-025-02654-1
Robotic spine surgery compared with fluoroscopic-assisted surgery: advantages, disadvantages, future perspectives
Abstract
Background: Robotic spine surgery (RSS) could potentially overcome some limitations of fluoroscopic-assisted surgery (FAS). The aim of this study was to analyze RSS advantages compared to FAS and the impact of a dedicated nursing team on surgical workflow efficiency.
Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed 260 adult patients with thoracolumbar degenerative/traumatic instability. One-hundred-thirty underwent posterior fusion with Medtronic Mazor X, while 130 were treated with FAS. Parameters included operative duration, OR entry-to-start time, screw implantation time, accuracy (Gertzbein-Robbins classification), radiation exposure, complications, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). We also assessed OR entry-start surgery/implant times, number of screws implanted, and duration of the intervention before and after the introduction of a dedicated nursing team for RSS.
Results: RSS reduced implantation times with higher accuracy of pedicle screws. It decreased exposure to radiation for both surgeons and patients. In our case series, there were no significant differences in complications or hospitalization times. A 10% difference in means was observed to the most recent follow-up between ODI of the patients operated with robotic (5%) and fluoroscopic-assisted (15%) surgery. In the RSS group, three (2.3%) cases of junctional syndrome occurred, seventeen (13.1%) with FAS. Implementing a dedicated nursing team reduced OR entry-start time and overall duration of robotic procedures.
Conclusions: In our experience, RSS had important advantages compared to FAS in terms of accuracy of pedicle screw positioning. It reduced implantation times and postoperative pain without additional complications. The learning curve of the operating room staff represented a crucial point in the speed of execution of the procedure.
Keywords: Dedicated nursing team; Fluoroscopic-assisted surgery; Pedicle screw accuracy; Radiation exposure; Robotic spine surgery; Surgical workflow efficiency.
© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
Robot-assisted versus navigated spinal fusion surgery: a comparative multicenter study on transpedicular screw placement accuracy and patient outcomes.Neurosurg Rev. 2025 Jun 21;48(1):524. doi: 10.1007/s10143-025-03674-z. Neurosurg Rev. 2025. PMID: 40542927
-
Three-Dimensional Fluoroscopic System to Assess Robotically Placed Pedicle Screws: Should We Confirm Robotic Pedicle Screw Placement With Advanced Imaging?Clin Spine Surg. 2025 Jul 1;38(6):E295-E299. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001724. Epub 2024 Oct 31. Clin Spine Surg. 2025. PMID: 39480015
-
A comparative study of robot-assisted navigation versus C-arm fluoroscopy in percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures.Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 26;15(1):27214. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-12549-8. Sci Rep. 2025. PMID: 40715292 Free PMC article.
-
Robotic and navigated pedicle screws are safer and more accurate than fluoroscopic freehand screws: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spine J. 2023 Feb;23(2):197-208. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.10.006. Epub 2022 Oct 21. Spine J. 2023. PMID: 36273761
-
Accuracy and Safety Between Robot-Assisted and Conventional Freehand Fluoroscope-Assisted Placement of Pedicle Screws in Thoracolumbar Spine: Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Apr 9;61(4):690. doi: 10.3390/medicina61040690. Medicina (Kaunas). 2025. PMID: 40282980 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Refining the assessment of robotic-assisted spine surgery: critical considerations for disease complexity, osteoporosis, and segment count.J Robot Surg. 2025 Aug 28;19(1):526. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02715-5. J Robot Surg. 2025. PMID: 40877591 No abstract available.
References
-
- Cornwall GB, Davis A, Walsh WR, Mobbs RJ, Vaccaro A (2020) Innovation and new technologies in spine surgery, circa 2020: a fifty-year review. Front Surg 7:575318. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2020.575318 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Boddapati V, Lombardi JM, Urakawa H, Lehman RA (2021) Intraoperative image guidance for the surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Ann Transl Med 9(1):91–91. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-2765 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Alluri RK, Avrumova F, Sivaganesan A, Vaishnav AS, Lebl DR, Qureshi SA (2021) Overview of robotic technology in spine surgery. HSS J 17(3):308–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/15563316211026647 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Mamdouhi T, Wang V, Echevarria AC, Katz A, Morris M, Zavurov G, Verma R (2024) A comprehensive review of the historical description of spine surgery and its evolution. Cureus 16(2):e54461. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.54461 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Wilson JP Jr., Fontenot L, Stewart C, Kumbhare D, Guthikonda B, Hoang S (2024) Image-guided navigation in spine surgery: from historical developments to future perspectives. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13072036 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous