STUDY DESIGN

This was a single-center prospective clinical and radiographic analysis of pedicle screw instrumentation with Robotic-assisted navigation (RAN) and augmented reality (AR).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of lumbosacral pedicle screw placement with RAN versus AR.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RAN and AR have demonstrated superior accuracy in lumbar pedicle screw placement compared to conventional free-hand techniques. RAN and AR techniques both tout specific advantages over their counterparts, but to date, no study has directly compared the two technologies regarding pedicle screw accuracy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent RAN or head-mounted AR navigated lumbosacral (L1-S1) pedicle screw placement for degenerative conditions were included. Screw accuracy was assessed by two independent reviewers on intraoperative 3D fluoroscopic scans using the Gertzbein and Robbins scale. A generalized linear mixed model was applied to evaluate the relationship between the screw placement technique and accuracy.

RESULTS

212 patients undergoing lumbosacral instrumentation with a total of 1,211 pedicle screws placed using RAN (n=108; screws= 827) or AR (n=104; screws= 384). Overall, Grade A was achieved in 92.6% of screws. No significant difference was found between RAN and AR screw placement regarding the incidence of accurate (Grade-A and -B screws; RAN n=824; 99.6% and AR n=379, 98.7%) versus inaccurate screws (Grade-C and -D screws; RAN n=3, 0.4% and AR n=5, 1.3%). When comparing "optimal" Grade-A screws (RAN n= 787, 95.2%, AR n=345, 89.8%) versus all other screws (B, C, and D), significantly higher accuracy was achieved using RAN (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

RAN and AR both achieved high accuracy in lumbosacral pedicle screw placement, proving reliable for this procedure. However, RAN resulted in significantly more Grade-A screw placements than AR.