scholarly journals Robotics and the spine: a review of current and ongoing applications

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. E10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faris Shweikeh ◽  
Jordan P. Amadio ◽  
Monica Arnell ◽  
Zachary R. Barnard ◽  
Terrence T. Kim ◽  
...  

Object Robotics in the operating room has shown great use and versatility in multiple surgical fields. Robot-assisted spine surgery has gained significant favor over its relatively short existence, due to its intuitive promise of higher surgical accuracy and better outcomes with fewer complications. Here, the authors analyze the existing literature on this growing technology in the era of minimally invasive spine surgery. Methods In an attempt to provide the most recent, up-to-date review of the current literature on robotic spine surgery, a search of the existing literature was conducted to obtain all relevant studies on robotics as it relates to its application in spine surgery and other interventions. Results In all, 45 articles were included in the analysis. The authors discuss the current status of this technology and its potential in multiple arenas of spinal interventions, mainly spine surgery and spine biomechanics testing. Conclusions There are numerous potential advantages and limitations to robotic spine surgery, as suggested in published case reports and in retrospective and prospective studies. Randomized controlled trials are few in number and show conflicting results regarding accuracy. The present limitations may be surmountable with future technological improvements, greater surgeon experience, reduced cost, improved operating room dynamics, and more training of surgical team members. Given the promise of robotics for improvements in spine surgery and spine biomechanics testing, more studies are needed to further explore the applicability of this technology in the spinal operating room. Due to the significant cost of the robotic equipment, studies are needed to substantiate that the increased equipment costs will result in significant benefits that will justify the expense.

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura A. Snyder ◽  
John O'Toole ◽  
Kurt M. Eichholz ◽  
Mick J. Perez-Cruet ◽  
Richard Fessler

Minimally invasive spine surgery has its roots in the mid-twentieth century with a few surgeons and a few techniques, but it has now developed into a large field of progressive spinal surgery. A wide range of techniques are now called “minimally invasive,” and case reports are submitted constantly with new “minimally invasive” approaches to spinal pathology. As minimally invasive spine surgery has become more mainstream over the past ten years, in this paper we discuss its history and development.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Clerc ◽  
Martin Hübner ◽  
K.R. Ashwin ◽  
S.P. Somashekhar ◽  
Beate Rau ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To assess the risk perception and the uptake of measures preventing environment-related risks in the operating room (OR) during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Methods A multicentric, international survey among OR teams in high-volume HIPEC and PIPAC centers: Surgeons (Surg), Scrub nurses (ScrubN), Anesthesiologists (Anest), Anesthesiology nurses (AnesthN), and OR Cleaning staff (CleanS). Scores extended from 0–10 (maximum). Results Ten centers in six countries participated in the study (response rate 100%). Two hundred and eleven responses from 68 Surg (32%), 49 ScrubN (23%), 45 Anest (21%), 31 AnesthN (15%), and 18 CleanS (9%) were gathered. Individual uptake of protection measures was 51.4%, similar among professions and between HIPEC and PIPAC. Perceived levels of protection were 7.57 vs. 7.17 for PIPAC and HIPEC, respectively (p<0.05), with Anesth scoring the lowest (6.81). Perceived contamination risk was 4.19 for HIPEC vs. 3.5 for PIPAC (p<0.01). Information level was lower for CleanS and Anesth for HIPEC and PIPAC procedures compared to all other responders (6.48 vs. 4.86, and 6.48 vs. 5.67, p<0.01). Willingness to obtain more information was 86%, the highest among CleanS (94%). Conclusions Experience with the current practice of safety protocols was similar during HIPEC and PIPAC. The individual uptake of protection measures was rather low. The safety perception was better for PIPAC, but the perceived level of protection remained relatively low. The willingness to obtain more information was high. Intensified, standardized training of all OR team members involved in HIPEC and PIPAC is meaningful.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document