Accuracy and safety analysis of the technique of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement with visualization
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20230803-00070
- VernacularTitle:机器人辅助可视化椎弓根置钉技术的精准性及安全性分析
- Author:
Kuoyun ZHU
1
;
Yue ZHU
;
Xinchun LIU
;
Lin CONG
;
Lei PEI
;
Haitao ZHU
;
Wei YUAN
;
Cui CUI
Author Information
1. 中国医科大学附属第一医院骨科，沈阳 110000
- Keywords:
Robotic surgical procedures;
Pedicle screws;
Comparative study;
Visualization technique
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2024;44(12):811-816
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement with visualization technology and conventional robot-assisted pedicle screw placement, and analyze the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement with visualization.Methods:This retrospective study analyzed data from 60 patients (39 males and 21 females) with an average age of 51.03±18.04 years (range 12-78 years) who underwent open spinal pedicle screw fixation surgery for thora columbar diseases at the Orthopedic Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University between August 2020 and September 2022. The cases included 25 cases of spinal stenosis, 15 cases of lumbar fractures, 7 cases of thoracic fractures, 3 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis, and 10 cases of spinal deformities. 30 patients underwent solid pedicle screw placement using robot-assisted visualization technology (visualization group), while the remaining 30 patients received hollow pedicle screw placement using conventional robot-assisted technology (conventional group). After screw placement, "O"-arm X-ray scans were performed for verification, and screw placement accuracy was evaluated based on the Gertzbein-Robbins standard. The study recorded and compared the time required for screw placement, number of fluoroscopy sessions, and perioperative complications between the two groups to provide a comprehensive assessment of surgical outcomes.Results:There were no significant differences in age and gender between the two groups ( P>0.05). In the visualization group, a total of 178 pedicle screws were placed, with 172 screws (96.6%) achieving satisfactory placement, while the conventional group placed 254 pedicle screws, with 240 screws (94.5%) achieving satisfactory placement. The difference in accuracy rates between the two groups was not statistically significant (χ 2=1.087, P=0.297). The visualization group required a mean of 2.60±1.03 fluoroscopy sessions during surgery, significantly less than the conventional group's mean of 5.57±2.12 sessions ( t=-6.860, P=0.001). Moreover, the visualization group had a shorter mean screw placement time of 13.23±3.68 minutes compared to the conventional group's mean of 24.68±15.75 minutes ( t=-3.870, P=0.040). All patients in both groups completed the surgery without postoperative complications such as infection, hematoma, or nerve root injury. Conclusion:The technique of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement with visualization effectively preserves the high precision achieved in conventional robotic surgery. With its advantage of real-time monitoring for screw position, it reduces the intraoperative fluoroscopy times and shortens the screw placement time, thereby further enhancing surgical efficiency.
