Comparison of accuracy and postoperative efficacy of robot and navigation technology assisted placement of pedicle screws
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20230706-00362
- VernacularTitle:机器人与导航技术辅助椎弓根螺钉置入的准确性和疗效比较
- Author:
Houkun LI
1
;
Liang YAN
;
Lequn SHAN
;
Yongchao DUAN
;
Kai SUN
;
Xuefang ZHANG
;
Yadong ZHANG
;
Dingjun HAO
Author Information
1. 西安交通大学附属红会医院脊柱外科，西安 712046
- Keywords:
Spine;
Surgery, computer-assisted;
Robotic surgical procedures;
Internal fixators
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2024;44(13):851-857
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the accuracy and efficacy of robot assisted and navigation assisted pedicle screw fixation.Methods:Retrospective analysis of 764 patients with lumbar spine disorders who underwent internal fixation treatment at the Department of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, from June 2017 to April 2023 were performed. They were divided into the Renaissance group (212 cases), the Tinavi group (301 cases), and the S8 navigation group (251 cases), according to the method of assisted placement of pedicle screws. The operation time, fluoroscopy time, X-ray radiation dose, intra-operative blood loss, accuracy of screw placement, screw revision rate, pain visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and postoperative infection rate were compared among the three groups.Results:922 screws were placed in the Renaissance group, 1,260 screws in the Tinavi group, and 1,044 screws in the S8 navigation group. The accuracy of clinically acceptable pedicle screw placement was 92.08% (849/922), 99.68% (1,256/1,260), and 99.43% (1,038/1,044) in the three groups, respectively, with the Renaissance group being smaller than the Tinavi group and the S8 group (χ 2=90.334, P<0.001; χ 2=68.446, P<0.001), and the Tinavi group and the S8 group had no statistically significant difference (χ 2=0.380, P=0.537). The operation time of the three groups was 173.64±62.23 min, 177.11±60.85 min, 176.02±60.93 min, and the intraoperative blood loss was 118.16±58.26 ml, 121.84±55.91 ml, 123.62±59.84 ml, respectively, and the differences between the groups were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The fluoroscopy time of the three groups was 8.73±2.92 s, 10.67±2.85 s, and 11.31±2.89 s, and the X-ray radiation doses were 18.83±7.41 μSv, 20.40±7.60 μSv, and 22.88±7.47 μSv, respectively, with statistically significant differences between the groups and the two comparisons ( P<0.05). All patients were given follow-up for 3-30 months. Three cases in the postoperative Renaissance group underwent screw revision for nerve root irritation due to screw penetration of the pedicle cortex, and none of the other two groups underwent screw revision. Postoperatively, one case in the Renaissance group and one case in the Tinavi group had superficial infections, which were cured after prolonged antibiotic use. At 3 months postoperatively, the VAS scores for leg pain in the Renaissance group, the Tinavi group, and the S8 navigation group were 3.52±1.14, 3.59±1.12, and 3.39±1.16, and the VAS scores for back pain were 3.54±1.14, 3.57±1.12, and 3.51±1.15, respectively; the ODI scores were 12.48%±4.53%, 12.01%±4.57%, and 12.28%±4.60%, and none of the differences between the groups were statistically significant ( P>0.05). Conclusion:The accuracy of screw placement by the Tinavi robot was comparable to that of the S8 navigation, and both were superior to that of the Renaissance robot; the fluoroscopy time and radiation dose of the Renaissance robot were smaller than those of the Tinavi robot, which was smaller than that of the S8 navigation. The early efficacy of robotics and navigation-assisted pedicle screw internal fixation for lumbar spine disorders is similar.
