Barzilay Y, Liebergall M, Fridlander A, Knoller N
Spine Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Centre, Jerusalem, Israel.
Int J Med Robot. 2006 Jun;2(2):146-53. doi: 10.1002/rcs.90.
Instrumented spinal fusion surgery is increasingly performed. Breaching of the pedicle occurs in 3-55% of screws; clinically significant screw misplacements occur in 0-7% of all transpedicular screw placements. Several techniques have reduced this incidence but none gained popularity due to cost as well as staff issues. Surgical robots offer distinct added value in accuracy and minimal invasiveness. The aim of this study is to introduce the SpineAssist--a novel spine surgery miniature robot, to discuss the various reasons that had prevented full success with its use, to identify patients related, technical related, and surgeon related issues, and to offer ways to avoid them.
The SpineAssist miniature robotic system is presented, including a short description of the system, its mode of action and a short summary of the surgical procedure.15 patients had undergone lumbar fusion procedures using the robotic system as part of clinical trials in two Israeli spine centres. A group of 9 procedures was identified within this prospective cohort. This group represents a wide array of technical challenges and human errors which were encountered during the clinical development phase of the SpineAssist. These 9 cases were conducted in two different sites by different surgical teams, over a period of 9 months, with an average interval of 7 weeks between consecutive cases. The cases were analysed for patient, system, surgeon and technical issues causing the difficulty. Conclusions were drawn as to how to avoid these hurdles in the future.
In six cases the system operated smoothly, resulting in accurate screws placement according to the pre-operative plan, this was confirmed by a post-operative CT scan. Technical and surgical challenges which are associated with the system early development stage were encountered during 9 procedures. On the technical side, the following phenomena were evident: 1) failure of the software to automatically achieve satisfying CT-to-fluoro image registration and 2) failure of the hospital's peripheral equipment/logistics preventing registration. On the clinical side of things, the following issues were encountered: 1) failure to avoid excessive pressure on the guiding arm caused by surrounding soft tissues, leading to a shift in the entry point and trajectory of the tool guide. 2) a surgeon applying too much force on the tool guide at the tip of the robotic arm, causing deviation from plan. 3) pre-operative plan out of the reach of the robot arm and 4) attachment of the clamp to the spinous process in a suboptimal orientation.
It is expected that following a steep learning curve in the range of 5-10 cases, recommended to take place within 2-3 weeks time, the surgical team will gain sufficient experience in operating the SpineAssist miniature robotic device in order to achieve excellent surgical results. The system may be used for wide range of applications including but not limited to pedicle screws, trans-facet and trans-laminar screws, biopsy needles, vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty tools and more. The preoperative plan has to be logical, intraoperative fluoro images taken with care, gentle surgical technique must be kept - maintaining the integrity of the posterior elements, and avoiding pressure between the robot arms and the soft tissues. During the clinical development phase discussed in this study, both teams used an early version of the system. Based on the results of this study several significant software and hardware improvements have already been implemented. It is our hope that describing and analysing our findings will help in planning and preparing for the clinical utilization of the SpineAssist system in future sites and will shorten their learning curve. By the time this article is published wider clinical experience will have been gathered and we expect to soon follow up with an analysis of clinical utilization of this system in a larger study group.
脊柱内固定融合手术的开展日益增多。椎弓根螺钉置入术中,螺钉穿破椎弓根的发生率为3% - 55%;在所有经椎弓根螺钉置入术中,具有临床意义的螺钉误置发生率为0% - 7%。已有多种技术降低了这一发生率,但由于成本及人员问题,均未得到广泛应用。手术机器人在准确性和微创性方面具有显著的附加价值。本研究旨在介绍SpineAssist——一种新型脊柱手术微型机器人,探讨其未能完全成功应用的各种原因,识别与患者、技术及外科医生相关的问题,并提供避免这些问题的方法。
介绍了SpineAssist微型机器人系统,包括系统的简要描述、作用方式及手术过程的简短总结。在以色列的两个脊柱中心,15例患者作为临床试验的一部分,接受了使用该机器人系统的腰椎融合手术。在这个前瞻性队列中确定了一组9例手术。该组代表了SpineAssist临床开发阶段遇到的一系列技术挑战和人为错误。这9例手术由不同的手术团队在两个不同地点进行,历时9个月,连续病例之间的平均间隔为7周。分析了导致困难的患者、系统、外科医生和技术问题。得出了未来如何避免这些障碍的结论。
6例手术中系统运行顺利,术后CT扫描证实螺钉置入符合术前计划。在9例手术中遇到了与系统早期开发阶段相关的技术和手术挑战。在技术方面,出现了以下现象:1)软件未能自动实现满意的CT与荧光图像配准;2)医院的外围设备/后勤问题导致配准失败。在临床方面,遇到了以下问题:1)未能避免周围软组织对导向臂造成过大压力,导致工具导向器的进针点和轨迹偏移;2)外科医生在机器人手臂末端对工具导向器施加过大力量,导致偏离计划;3)术前计划超出机器人手臂的操作范围;4)夹子以次优方向附着于棘突。
预计在5 - 10例手术的陡峭学习曲线(建议在2 - 3周内完成)之后,手术团队将在操作SpineAssist微型机器人设备方面获得足够经验,以取得优异的手术效果。该系统可用于广泛的应用领域,包括但不限于椎弓根螺钉、经关节突和经椎板螺钉、活检针、椎体成形术或后凸成形术工具等。术前计划必须合理,术中小心获取荧光图像,必须保持轻柔的手术技术——维持后部结构的完整性,并避免机器人手臂与软组织之间的压力。在本研究讨论的临床开发阶段,两个团队都使用了该系统的早期版本。基于本研究结果,已经对软件和硬件进行了多项重大改进。我们希望描述和分析我们的发现将有助于未来其他机构规划和准备SpineAssist系统的临床应用,并缩短他们的学习曲线。在本文发表时,将已经积累更广泛的临床经验,我们期望很快跟进对该系统在更大研究组中的临床应用分析。