Improved Accuracy and Safety of Pedicle Screw Placement by Using a Probe with an Electrical Conductivity-Measuring Device during Severe Syndromic and Neuromuscular Scoliosis Spine Surgery

An electrical conductivity-measuring device (ECD) has recently been developed to support pedicle screw placement. However, no evidence exists regarding its efficacy for syndromic/neuromuscular scoliosis with extremely difficult screwing. We retrospectively reviewed 2010–2016 medical records of 21 consecutive syndromic/neuromuscular scoliosis patients undergoing free-hand segmental fixation surgery at our institution and compared the pedicle screw insertion accuracy and safety between 10 with a conventional non-ECD probe (2010–2013) and 11 with an ECD probe (2014–2016). We analyzed preoperative pedicle shape and postoperative screw placement in computed tomography. There were no significant differences between ECD and non-ECD groups in demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics including scoliosis severity and pedicle diameter. The abandonment rate due to liquorrhea or perforation was lower in ECD (12.3%) than in non-ECD (26.7%) (p < 0.01). Acceptable insertion without perforation or <2-mm lateral/cranial position was more frequent in ECD (67.1%) than in non-ECD (56.9%) (p = 0.02). Critical ≥5-mm medial/caudal malposition was not seen in ECD (0.0%) but in non-ECD (2.4%) (p = 0.02). The perforation distance was shorter in ECD (2.2 ± 1.1 mm) than in non-ECD (2.6 ± 1.7 mm) (p = 0.01). Results involve small sample size, selection, performance, and learning curve biases; nevertheless, ECD could be useful for more accurate and safer pedicle screw placement in severe syndromic/neuromuscular scoliosis.

Comparison of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis: effect of pedicle screw placement on proximal facet invasion in surgical treatment

Background Pedicle screw invasion of the proximal articular process will cause local articular process degeneration and acceleration, which is an important factor affecting adjacent segment degeneration. Although lumbar spondylolisthesis is a risk factor for screw invasion of the proximal joint, there is no clear conclusion regarding the two different types of spondylolisthesis. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the influence of pedicle screw placement on proximal facet invasion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis and isthmic spondylolisthesis. Methods In total, 468 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis treated by decompression and fusion in our hospital from January 2017 to January 2020 were included in this retrospective study. Among them, 238 cases were degenerative spondylolisthesis (group A), and 230 cases were isthmic spondylolisthesis (group B). Sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, postoperative VAS and ODI scores at 1 month and 3 months, and angle of the proximal facet joint at the last follow-up were recorded and compared between the two groups. The degree of pedicle screw invasion of the proximal facet joint was graded and compared by the SEO grading method. Results There were no significant differences in sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, preoperative VAS and ODI scores, or proximal facet joint angle between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups at 1 month and 3 months after the operation (P > 0.05). The VAS score of group A at the last follow-up was 1 (1,2). The VAS score of group B at the last follow-up was 3 (1,3). The ODI score of group A at the last follow-up was 6(4,26). The ODI score of group B at the last follow-up was 15(8,36). The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups at the last follow-up were significantly different (P < 0.05). According to the SEO grading method, the invasion of the proximal articular process by pedicle screw placement in group A involved 320 cases in grade 0, 128 cases in grade I and 28 cases in grade II. In group B, there were 116 cases in grade 0, 248 cases in grade I and 96 cases in grade II, with a significant difference (P < 0.01). Conclusion In summary, a certain number of cases involving screws invading the proximal facet joint occurred in the two different types of lumbar spondylolisthesis, but the number in the isthmic spondylolisthesis group was significantly higher than that in the degenerative spondylolisthesis group, which caused more trauma to the proximal facet joint and significantly affected the patient prognosis.

Collaborative spinal robot system for laminectomy: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVE The application of robots in the field of pedicle screw placement has achieved great success. However, decompressive laminectomy, a step that is just as critical as pedicle screw placement, does not have a mature robot-assisted system. To address this lack, the authors designed a collaborative spine robot system to assist with laminectomy. In this study, they aimed to investigate the reliability of this novel collaborative spinal robot system and compare it with manual laminectomy (ML). METHODS Thirty in vitro porcine lumbar vertebral specimens were obtained as experimental bone specimens. Robot-assisted laminectomy (RAL) was performed on the left side of the lamina (n = 30) and ML was performed on the right side (n = 30). The time required for laminectomy on one side, whether the lamina was penetrated, and the remaining thickness of the lamina were compared between the two groups. RESULTS The time required for laminectomy on one side was longer in the RAL group than in the ML group (median 326 seconds [IQR 133 seconds] vs 108.5 seconds [IQR 43 seconds], p < 0.001). In the RAL group, complete lamina penetration occurred twice (6.7%), while in the ML group, it occurred 9 times (30%); the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.045). There was no statistically significant difference in the remaining lamina thickness between the two groups (median 1.035 mm [IQR 0.419 mm] vs 1.084 mm [IQR 0.383 mm], p = 0.842). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study confirm the safety of this novel spinal robot system for laminectomy. However, its efficiency requires further improvement.

Does robot-assisted navigation influence pedicle screw selection and accuracy in minimally invasive spine surgery?

OBJECTIVE The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement has increased with the advent of robotic and surgical navigation technologies. However, the effect of robotic intraoperative screw size and trajectory templating remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare pedicle screw sizes and accuracy of placement using robotic navigation (RN) versus skin-based intraoperative navigation (ION) alone in minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a single-institution registry of spine procedures performed over a 4-year period. Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level primary or revision minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw placement, via either robotic assistance or surgical navigation alone, were included. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Pedicle screw type, quantity, length, diameter, and the presence of endplate breach or facet joint violation were assessed. Statistical analysis using the Student t-test and chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences in pedicle screw sizes and the accuracy of placement between both groups. RESULTS Overall, 222 patients were included, of whom 92 underwent RN and 130 underwent ION MIS-TLIF. A total of 403 and 534 pedicle screws were placed with RN and ION, respectively. The mean screw diameters were 7.25 ± 0.81 mm and 6.72 ± 0.49 mm (p < 0.001) for the RN and ION groups, respectively. The mean screw length was 48.4 ± 4.48 mm in the RN group and 45.6 ± 3.46 mm in the ION group (p < 0.001). The rates of “ideal” pedicle screws in the RN and ION groups were comparable at 88.5% and 88.4% (p = 0.969), respectively. The overall screw placement was also similar. The RN cohort had 63.7% screws rated as good and 31.4% as acceptable, while 66.1% of ION-placed screws had good placement and 28.7% had acceptable placement (p = 0.661 and p = 0.595, respectively). There was a significant reduction in high-grade breaches in the RN group (0%, n = 0) compared with the ION group (1.2%, n = 17, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that robotic assistance allows for placement of screws with greater screw diameter and length compared with surgical navigation alone, although with similarly high accuracy. These findings have implied that robotic platforms may allow for safe placement of the “optimal screw,” maximizing construct stability and, thus, the ability to obtain a successful fusion.

Risk Factors of Unsatisfactory Robot-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement: A Case-Control Study

Objective: To identify potential risk factors of unsatisfactory screw position during robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation.Methods: A retrospective analysis of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation performed in Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from March 2018 to March 2019 was conducted. Research data was collected from the medical record and imaging systems. Univariate tests were performed on the potential risk factors (patient’s characteristics and surgical factors) of unsatisfactory screw position during robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation. For statistically significant variables in univariate tests, a logistic regression test was used to identify independent risk factors for unsatisfactory screw position.Results: A total of 780 pedicle screws placed in 163 robot-assisted surgeries were analyzed. The rate of perfect screw positions was 93.08%, and the unsatisfactory rate was 6.92%. In patients with severe obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) (odds ratio [OR], 2.459; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.199–5.044; p = 0.014), osteoporosis (T ≤ -2.5) (OR, 1.857; 95% CI, 1.046–3.295; p = 0.034), and the segments 3 levels away from the tracker (OR, 2.216; 95% CI, 1.119–4.387; p = 0.022), robot-assisted pedicle screw placement has a higher risk of screw malposition.Conclusion: During robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for patients with severe obesity, osteoporosis, and segments 3 levels away from the tracker, vigilance should be maintained during surgery to avoid postoperative complications due to unsatisfactory screw position.

Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement under Regional Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background. Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is usually performed under general anesthesia to keep the body still. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the robot-assisted technique under regional anesthesia with that of conventional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement under general anesthesia in minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery. Methods. This study recruited patients who underwent robot-assisted percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) or fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) between December 2017 and February 2020 at a single center. Based on the method of percutaneous pedicle screw placement used, patients were divided into the robot-assisted under regional anesthesia (group RE-RO) and fluoroscopy-guided under general anesthesia (group GE-FLU) groups. The primary outcome measures were screw accuracy and the incidence of facet joint violation (FJV). Secondary outcome measures included X-ray and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores which were used to evaluate the degree of the postoperative pain at 4 hours and on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. Intraoperative adverse events were also recorded. Results. Eighteen patients were included in group RE-RO, and 23 patients were included in group GE-FLU. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws (Gertzbein and Robbins grades A and B) were 94.4% and 91.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the percentages of clinically acceptable screws ( p = 0.44 ) or overall Gertzbein and Robbins screw accuracy grades ( p = 0.35 ). Only the top screws were included in the analysis of FJVs. The percentages of FJV (Babu grades 1, 2, and 3) were 5.6% and 28.3%, respectively. This difference was statistically significant ( p = 0.01 ). Overall, the FJV grades in group RE-RO were significantly better than those in group GE-FLU ( p = 0.009 ). The mean fluoroscopy time for each screw in group RE-RO was significantly shorter than that in group GE-FLU (group RE-RO: 5.4 ± 1.9 seconds and group GE-FLU: 6.8 ± 2.0 seconds; p = 0.03 ). The postoperative pain between the RE-RO and GE-FLU groups was not statistically significant. The intraoperative adverse events included 1 case of registration failure and 1 case of guide-wire dislodgment in group RE-RO, as well as 2 cases of screw misplacement in group GE-FLU. No complications related to anesthesia were observed. Conclusion. Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement under regional anesthesia can be performed effectively and safely. The accuracy is comparable to the conventional technique. Moreover, this technique has the advantage of fewer FJVs and a lower radiation time.

Initial Intraoperative Experience with Robotic-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement with Cirq® Robotic Alignment: An Evaluation of the First 70 Screws

Background: Robot-guided spine surgery is based on a preoperatively planned trajectory that is reproduced in the operating room by the robotic device. This study presents our initial experience with thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement using Brainlab’s Cirq® surgeon-controlled robotic arm (BrainLab, Munich, Germany). Methods: All patients who underwent robotic-assisted implantation of pedicle screws in the thoracolumbar spine were included in the study. Our workflow, consisting of preoperative imagining, screw planning, intraoperative imaging with automatic registration, fusion of the preoperative and intraoperative imaging with a review of the preplanned screw trajectories, robotic-assisted insertion of K-wires, followed by a fluoroscopy-assisted insertion of pedicle screws and control iCT scan, is described. Results: A total of 12 patients (5 male and 7 females, mean age 67.4 years) underwent 13 surgeries using the Cirq® Robotic Alignment Module for thoracolumbar pedicle screw implantation. Spondylodiscitis, metastases, osteoporotic fracture, and spinal canal stenosis were detected. A total of 70 screws were implanted. The mean time per screw was 08:27 ± 06:54 min. The mean time per screw for the first 7 surgeries (first 36 screws) was 16:03 ± 09:32 min and for the latter 6 surgeries (34 screws) the mean time per screw was 04:35 ± 02:11 min (p < 0.05). Mean entry point deviation was 1.9 ± 1.23 mm, mean deviation from the tip of the screw was 2.61 ± 1.6 mm and mean angular deviation was 3.5° ± 2°. For screw-placement accuracy we used the CT-based Gertzbein and Robbins System (GRS). Of the total screws, 65 screws were GRS A screws (92.85%), one screw was a GRS B screw, and two further screws were grade C. Two screws were D screws (2.85%) and underwent intraoperative revision. There were no perioperative deficits. Conclusion: Brainlab’s Cirq® Robotic Alignment surgeon-controlled robotic arm is a safe and beneficial method for accurate thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement with high accuracy.

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Freehand Pedicle Screw Placement After One-to Three-Level Lumbar Fusion

Study Design Retrospective cohort study Objectives The purpose of this study is to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing one-to three-level lumbar fusion using robotically assisted vs freehand pedicle screw placement. Methods Patients who underwent either robotically assisted or freehand pedicle screw placement for one-to three-level lumbar fusion surgery from January 1, 2014 to August 31, 2020 at a single academic institution were identified. Propensity score matching was performed based on demographic variables. Clinical and surgical outcomes were compared between groups. Recovery Ratios (RR) and the proportion of patients achieving the minimally clinically important difference (%MCID) were calculated for Oswestry Disability Index, PCS-12, MCS-12, VAS Back, and VAS Leg at 1 year. Surgical outcomes included complication and revision rates. Results A total of 262 patients were included in the study (85 robotic and 177 freehand). No significant differences were found in ΔPROM scores, RR, or MCID between patients who underwent robotically assisted vs freehand screw placement. The rates of revision (1.70% freehand vs 1.18% robotic, P = 1.000) and complications (.57% freehand vs 1.18% robotic, P = .546) were not found to be statically different between the 2 groups. Controlling for demographic factors, procedure type (robotic vs freehand) did not emerge as a significant predictor of ΔPROM scores on multivariate linear regression analysis. Conclusions Robotically assisted pedicle screw placement did not result in significantly improved clinical or surgical outcomes compared to conventional freehand screw placement for patients undergoing one-to three-level lumbar fusion.