Department of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY.
New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 Jan 1;47(1):42-48. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004132.
Multicenter cohort.
To compare the robot time/screw, radiation exposure, robot abandonment, screw accuracy, and 90-day outcomes between robot-assisted percutaneous and robot-assisted open approach for short lumbar fusion (1- and 2-level).
There is conflicting literature on the superiority of robot-assisted minimally invasive spine surgery to open techniques. A large, multicenter study is needed to further elucidate the outcomes and complications between these two approaches.
We included adult patients (≥18 yrs old) who underwent robot-assisted short lumbar fusion surgery from 2015 to 2019 at four independent institutions. A propensity score matching algorithm was employed to control for the potential selection bias between percutaneous and open surgery. The minimum follow-up was 90 days after the index surgery.
After propensity score matching, 310 patients remained. The mean (standard deviation) Charlson comorbidity index was 1.6 (1.5) and 53% of patients were female. The most common diagnoses included high-grade spondylolisthesis (grade >2) (48%), degenerative disc disease (22%), and spinal stenosis (25%), and the mean number of instrumented levels was 1.5(0.5). The operative time was longer in the open (198 min) versus the percutaneous group (167 min, P value = 0.007). However, the robot time/screw was similar between cohorts (P value > 0.05). The fluoroscopy time/ screw for percutaneous (14.4 s) was longer than the open group (10.1 s, P value = 0.021). The rates for screw exchange and robot abandonment were similar between groups (P value > 0.05). The estimated blood loss (open: 146 mL vs. percutaneous: 61.3 mL, P value < 0.001) and transfusion rate (open: 3.9% vs. percutaneous: 0%, P value = 0.013) were greater for the open group. The 90-day complication rate and mean length of stay were not different between cohorts (P value > 0.05).
Percutaneous robot-assisted spine surgery may increase radiation exposure, but can achieve a shorter operative time and lower risk for intraoperative blood loss for short-lumbar fusion. Percutaneous approaches do not appear to have an advantage for other short-term postoperative outcomes. Future multicenter studies on longer fusion surgeries and the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes are needed.Level of Evidence: 3.
多中心队列研究。
比较机器人辅助经皮与机器人辅助开放手术治疗短节段腰椎融合术(1-2 节段)的机器人时间/螺钉、辐射暴露、机器人放弃、螺钉准确性和 90 天结果。
机器人辅助微创脊柱手术优于开放技术的优势尚存争议。需要一项大型多中心研究来进一步阐明这两种方法之间的结果和并发症。
我们纳入了 2015 年至 2019 年在四个独立机构接受机器人辅助短节段腰椎融合术的成年患者(≥18 岁)。采用倾向评分匹配算法来控制经皮与开放手术之间潜在的选择偏倚。最小随访时间为指数手术后 90 天。
经倾向评分匹配后,310 例患者仍保留在研究中。平均(标准差)Charlson 合并症指数为 1.6(1.5),53%的患者为女性。最常见的诊断包括高分级滑脱(>2 级)(48%)、退行性椎间盘疾病(22%)和椎管狭窄症(25%),平均植入节段数为 1.5(0.5)。开放组(198 分钟)的手术时间长于经皮组(167 分钟,P 值=0.007)。然而,两组的机器人时间/螺钉相似(P 值>0.05)。经皮组的透视时间/螺钉(14.4 秒)长于开放组(10.1 秒,P 值=0.021)。两组螺钉更换和机器人放弃的发生率相似(P 值>0.05)。开放组的估计失血量(146 毫升)和输血率(3.9%)均大于经皮组(61.3 毫升和 0%,P 值均<0.001)。两组 90 天并发症发生率和平均住院时间无差异(P 值>0.05)。
经皮机器人辅助脊柱手术可能会增加辐射暴露,但可以缩短手术时间,并降低短节段腰椎融合术的术中失血量风险。经皮入路在其他短期术后结果方面似乎没有优势。需要进一步开展关于更长节段融合手术和纳入患者报告结局的多中心研究。
3 级