Park Sang Min, Kim Ho Joong, Lee Se Yeon, Chang Bong Soon, Lee Choon Ki, Yeom Jin S
Spine Center and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Yonsei Med J. 2018 May;59(3):438-444. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2018.59.3.438.
We prospectively assessed the early radiographic and clinical outcomes (minimum follow-up of 2 years) of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation (Robot-PSF) and conventional freehand pedicle screw fixation (Conv-PSF).
Patients were randomly assigned to Robot-PSF (37 patients) or Conv-PSF (41 patients) for posterior interbody fusion surgery. The Robot-PSF group underwent minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation using a pre-planned robot-guided screw trajectory. The Conv-PSF underwent screw fixation using the freehand technique. Radiographic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) was measured on plain radiographs, and clinical outcomes were measured using visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores regularly after surgery.
The two groups had similar values for radiographic ASD, including University California at Los Angeles grade, vertebral translation, angular motion, and loss of disc height (p=0.320). At final follow-up, both groups had experienced significant improvements in back VAS, leg VAS, and ODI scores after surgery (p<0.001), although inter-group differences were not significant for back VAS (p=0.876), leg VAS (p=0.429), and ODI scores (p=0.952). In the Conv-PSF group, revision surgery was required for two of the 25 patients (8%), compared to no patients in the Robot-PSF group.
There were no significant differences in radiographic ASD and clinical outcomes between Robot-PSF and Conv-PSF. Thus, the advantages of robot-assisted surgery (accurate pedicle screw insertion and minimal facet joint violation) do not appear to be clinically significant.
我们前瞻性评估了机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉固定术(Robot-PSF)和传统徒手椎弓根螺钉固定术(Conv-PSF)的早期影像学和临床结果(最短随访2年)。
将患者随机分为Robot-PSF组(37例)或Conv-PSF组(41例),进行后路椎间融合手术。Robot-PSF组采用预先规划的机器人引导螺钉轨迹进行微创椎弓根螺钉固定。Conv-PSF组采用徒手技术进行螺钉固定。在X线平片上测量影像学相邻节段退变(ASD),术后定期使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)和奥斯威斯利功能障碍指数(ODI)评分评估临床结果。
两组在影像学ASD方面的值相似,包括加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校分级、椎体平移、角运动和椎间盘高度丢失(p=0.320)。在末次随访时,两组术后背部VAS、腿部VAS和ODI评分均有显著改善(p<0.001),尽管两组间背部VAS(p=0.876)、腿部VAS(p=0.429)和ODI评分(p=0.952)差异无统计学意义。Conv-PSF组25例患者中有2例(8%)需要翻修手术,而Robot-PSF组无患者需要翻修手术。
Robot-PSF和Conv-PSF在影像学ASD和临床结果方面无显著差异。因此,机器人辅助手术的优势(椎弓根螺钉置入准确且小关节损伤最小)在临床上似乎并不显著。