Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Apr 15;37(8):E496-501. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824b7767.
Single-center prospective randomized controlled study.
To evaluate the accuracy of robot-assisted (RO) implantation of lumbar/sacral pedicle screws in comparison with the freehand (FH) conventional technique.
SpineAssist is a miniature robot for the implantation of thoracic, lumbar, and sacral pedicle screws. The system, studied in cadaver and cohort studies, revealed a high accuracy, so far. A direct comparison of the robot assistance with the FH technique is missing.
Patients requiring mono- or bisegmental lumbar or lumbosacral stabilization were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to FH or RO pedicle screw implantation. Instrumentation was performed using fluoroscopic guidance (FH) or robot assistance. The primary end point screw position was assessed by a postoperative computed tomography, and screw position was classified (A: no cortical violation; B: cortical breach <2 mm; C: ≥2 mm to <4 mm; D: ≥4 mm to <6 mm; E: ≥6 mm). Secondary end points as radiation exposure, duration of surgery/planning, and hospital stay were assessed.
A total of 298 pedicle screws were implanted in 60 patients (FH, 152; RO, 146). Ninety-three percent had good positions (A or B) in FH, and 85% in RO. Preparation time in the operating room (OR), overall OR time, and intraoperative radiation time were not different for both groups. Surgical time for screw placement was significantly shorter for FH (84 minutes) than for RO (95 minutes). Ten RO screws required an intraoperative conversion to the FH. One FH screw needed a secondary revision.
In this study, the accuracy of the conventional FH technique was superior to the RO technique. Most malpositioned screws of the RO group showed a lateral deviation. Attachment of the robot to the spine seems a vulnerable aspect potentially leading to screw malposition as well as slipping of the implantation cannula at the screw entrance point.
单中心前瞻性随机对照研究。
评估机器人辅助(RO)与徒手(FH)常规技术植入腰椎/骶骨椎弓根螺钉的准确性。
SpineAssist 是一种用于植入胸椎、腰椎和骶骨椎弓根螺钉的微型机器人。该系统在尸体和队列研究中显示出了很高的准确性,到目前为止。RO 辅助技术与 FH 技术的直接比较尚不存在。
需要单节段或双节段腰椎或腰骶固定的患者以 1:1 的比例随机分为 FH 或 RO 椎弓根螺钉植入组。使用透视引导(FH)或机器人辅助进行器械操作。术后通过计算机断层扫描评估螺钉位置,螺钉位置分类(A:无皮质侵犯;B:皮质破裂<2mm;C:≥2mm 至<4mm;D:≥4mm 至<6mm;E:≥6mm)。评估次要终点,如辐射暴露、手术/规划持续时间和住院时间。
60 名患者共植入 298 枚椎弓根螺钉(FH 组 152 枚,RO 组 146 枚)。93%的 FH 螺钉位置良好(A 或 B),85%的 RO 螺钉位置良好。两组患者在手术室(OR)准备时间、总 OR 时间和术中辐射时间方面无差异。FH 组(84 分钟)的螺钉放置手术时间明显短于 RO 组(95 分钟)。10 枚 RO 螺钉需要术中转为 FH 技术。1 枚 FH 螺钉需要二次修正。
在这项研究中,传统 FH 技术的准确性优于 RO 技术。RO 组大多数定位不良的螺钉均表现为侧向偏差。机器人与脊柱的连接似乎是一个脆弱的方面,可能导致螺钉位置不当以及植入套管在螺钉入口点处滑动。