Department of Orthopaedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 1055 Sanxiang Road, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Department of Orthopaedics, First People's Hospital of Xuzhou, 269 Daxue Road, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China.
BMC Surg. 2022 Oct 22;22(1):365. doi: 10.1186/s12893-022-01814-6.
There has been increased development of robotic technologies for the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement. However, it remains unclear whether the robot really optimize the selection of screw sizes and enhance screw stability. The purpose of this study is to compare the sizes (diameter and length), placement accuracy and the loosening rate of pedicle screws using robotic-assisted versus conventional fluoroscopy approaches for thoracolumbar fractures.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate 70 consecutive patients [34 cases of robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (RAF) and 36 of conventional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (FGF)]. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and radiological features were recorded. Pedicle screw length, diameter, and pedicle screw placement accuracy were assessed. The patients' sagittal kyphosis Cobb angles (KCA), anterior vertebral height ratios (VHA), and screw loosening rate were evaluated by radiographic data 1 year after surgery.
There was no significant difference in the mean computed tomography (CT) Hounsfield unit (HU) values, operation duration, or length of hospital stay between the groups. Compared with the FGF group, the RAF group had a lower fluoroscopy frequency [14 (12-18) vs. 21 (16-25), P < 0.001] and a higher "grade A + B" pedicle screw placement rate (96.5% vs. 89.4%, P < 0.05). The mean screw diameter was 6.04 ± 0.55 mm in the RAF group and 5.78 ± 0.50 mm in the FGF group (P < 0.001). The mean screw length was 50.45 ± 4.37 mm in the RAF group and 48.63 ± 3.86 mm in the FGF group (P < 0.001). The correction loss of the KCA and VHR of the RAF group was less than that of the FGT group at the 1-year follow-up [(3.8 ± 1.8° vs. 4.9 ± 4.2°) and (5.5 ± 4.9% vs. 6.4 ± 5.7%)], and screw loosening occurred in 2 out of 34 patients (5.9%) in the RAF group, and 6 out of 36 patients (16.7%) in the FGF group, but there were no significant differences (P > 0.05).
Compared with the fluoroscopy-guided technique, robotic-assisted spine surgery decreased radiation exposure and optimizes screw trajectories and dimensions intraoperatively. Although not statistically significant, the loosening rate of the RAF group was lower that of than the FGT group.
为了提高经皮椎弓根螺钉置入的准确性,机器人技术得到了越来越多的发展。然而,机器人是否真的能优化螺钉尺寸的选择并增强螺钉稳定性仍不清楚。本研究的目的是比较机器人辅助与传统透视引导下胸腰椎骨折经皮椎弓根螺钉固定的螺钉大小(直径和长度)、置钉准确性和松动率。
回顾性队列研究评估了 70 例连续患者[机器人辅助经皮椎弓根螺钉固定 34 例(RAF 组)和传统透视引导经皮椎弓根螺钉固定 36 例(FGF 组)]。记录患者的人口统计学、临床特征和影像学特征。评估椎弓根螺钉的长度、直径和置钉准确性。术后 1 年通过影像学数据评估患者的矢状面后凸 Cobb 角(KCA)、椎体前缘高度比(VHA)和螺钉松动率。
两组间 CT 平均亨氏单位(HU)值、手术时间和住院时间无显著差异。与 FGF 组相比,RAF 组透视频率更低[14(12-18)比 21(16-25),P<0.001],“A+B 级”椎弓根螺钉置钉率更高(96.5%比 89.4%,P<0.05)。RAF 组平均螺钉直径为 6.04±0.55mm,FGF 组为 5.78±0.50mm(P<0.001)。RAF 组平均螺钉长度为 50.45±4.37mm,FGF 组为 48.63±3.86mm(P<0.001)。RAF 组术后 1 年 KCA 和 VHR 的矫正丢失小于 FGF 组[(3.8±1.8°比 4.9±4.2°)和(5.5±4.9%比 6.4±5.7%)],RAF 组 34 例中有 2 例(5.9%)发生螺钉松动,FGF 组 36 例中有 6 例(16.7%)发生螺钉松动,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
与透视引导技术相比,机器人辅助脊柱手术可减少辐射暴露,并优化术中螺钉轨迹和尺寸。虽然没有统计学意义,但 RAF 组的松动率低于 FGT 组。