Evaluation of robot-guided minimally invasive implantation of 2067 pedicle screws

ObjectiveRecent studies have investigated the role of spinal image guidance for pedicle screw placement. Many authors have observed an elevated placement accuracy and overall improvement of outcome measures. This study assessed a bi-institutional experience following introduction of the Renaissance miniature robot for spinal image guidance in Europe.MethodsThe medical records and radiographs of all patients who underwent robot-guided implantation of spinal instrumentation using the novel system (between October 2011 and March 2015 in Mainz and February 2014 and February 2016 in Regensburg) were reviewed to determine the efficacy and safety of the newly introduced robotic system. Screw position accuracy, complications, exposure durations to intraoperative radiation, and reoperation rate were assessed.ResultsOf the 413 surgeries that used robotic guidance, 406 were via a minimally invasive approach. In 7 cases the surgeon switched to conventional screw placement, using a midline approach, due to referencing problems. A total of 2067 screws were implanted using robotic guidance, and 1857 screws were evaluated by postoperative CT. Of the 1857 screws, 1799 (96.9%) were classified as having an acceptable or good position, whereas 38 screws (2%) showed deviations of 3–6 mm and 20 screws (1.1%) had deviations > 6 mm. Nine misplaced screws, implanted in 7 patients, required revision surgery, yielding a screw revision rate of 0.48% of the screws and 7 of 406 (1.7%) of the patients. The mean ± SD per-patient intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure was 114.4 (± 72.5) seconds for 5.1 screws on average and any further procedure required. Perioperative and direct postoperative complications included hemorrhage (2 patients, 0.49%) and wound infections necessitating surgical revision (20 patients, 4.9%).ConclusionsThe hexapod miniature robotic device proved to be a safe and robust instrument in all situations, including those in which patients were treated on an emergency basis. Placement accuracy was high; peri- and early postoperative complication rates were found to be lower than rates published in other series of percutaneous screw placement techniques. Intraoperative radiation exposure was found to be comparable to published values for other minimally invasive and conventional approaches.

To Spinal Image or Not To Spinal Image, That is the Question

Although back pain is the most common and expensive cause of work disability in the United States, our understanding of low back pain (LBP) is limited despite the advantages of advanced imaging technologies. Diagnostic studies often are requested for fear of missing serious or occult pathology or to reassure patients but have a low likelihood of identifying a specific cause for the reported symptoms in patients who present with nonspecific LBP. From a clinical perspective, the information provided in lumbar imaging, whether plain X rays or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), has not been found either to influence treatment recommendations or improve outcomes. Further, routine advanced imaging is not associated with improved outcomes and identifies many radiographic findings that correlate poorly with symptoms; imaging is recommended when severe or progressive neurologic deficit is present or if serious underlying disease is suspected. Surgery rates are highest where imaging rates are highest, and a significant proportion of the variation in rates of spine surgery can be explained by differences in the rates of advanced spinal imaging. Because imaging has no role in the impairment rating of nonspecific LBP, an individual's having a work injury that requires an impairment rating is not a reason to order spinal imaging. To answer the question in this article's title, the answer usually is not to order a spinal image.

Evaluation of registration techniques for spinal image guidance

Object Paired point matching alone and paired point matching combined with surface matching are the two techniques used for the registration step in preoperative computerized tomography–based spinal image guidance. In the present study the authors sought to compare paired point–matching registration alone with paired point matching supplemented with surface matching to determine if the addition of surface matching improves navigational accuracy. Methods Pedicle screws were placed in three embalmed human cervicothoracic spinal specimens during image guidance to serve as a reference points. The specimens were then rescanned, and each level was registered using paired point matching alone and then by paired point supplemented with surface matching. Navigational accuracy was assessed by placing the stereotactic probe in the center of the screw head, and measuring the apparent distance between the screw head and probe on the computer monitor. Statistical analysis was used to compare the registration error and navigational error between the two techniques. Seventy-five screws were placed at 46 vertebral levels. The mean registration error for the paired point matching/surface matching technique (0.5 mm) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than that of the paired point matching alone technique (1.2 mm); however, the intertechnique difference in navigational error was nearly equivalent (1.3 mm compared with 1.4 mm) and statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). Conclusions Although the addition of surface matching to paired point registration significantly decreased the mean registration error, the actual navigational accuracy between the two techniques was equivalent when easily distinguishable points were meticulously selected. The use of paired point matching alone did not compromise the accuracy of navigation and is likely to result in decreased operating time.