Objective:To compare the efficacy of robot system-assisted versus freehand screw revision for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with lower cervical fractures.Methods:A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 57 patients with AS combined with lower cervical fractures admitted to Honghui Hospital Affiliated to Xi'an Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou Orthopedic Hospital, and Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, including 46 males and 11 females, aged 38-77 years [(65.4±9.5)years]. Injury segments involved C 3 in 7 patients, C 4 in 13, C 5 in 25, C 6 in 10, and C 7 in 2. All the patients underwent revision surgery, among whom, 22 patients were treated with robot system-assisted cervical pedicle screw placement (robot nailing group, with 190 screws), and 35 with freehand cervical pedicle screw placement (freehand nailing group, with 300 screws). The operative duration, intraoperative bleeding volume, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy, incision length, and length of hospital stay of the two groups were compared; the time of single nscrew insertion, the number of single nail revisions, the distance between screws and the anterior cortex, the accuracy of screw placement of grade 0 and grade 0+1 were recorded in the two groups. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Society (JOA) score, neck dysfunction index (NDI), American Spine Injury Association (ASIA) classification before operation, at 3 days, 3 months after operation and at the last follow-up were compared between the two groups. The complication rate was also noted. Results:All the patients were followed up for 12-16 months [(14.3±2.1)months]. The operative duration, intraoperative bleeding volume, and frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy were (186.4±12.9)minutes, (486.1±68.6)ml, and (3.4±1.3)times in the robot nailing group, which were shorter or less than (206.7±14.4)minutes, (660.3±45.2)ml, and (13.5±3.6)times in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.01). The incision length was (9.4±2.4)cm in the robot nailing group, longer than (5.6±1.2)cm in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.01), and the length of hospital stay was (3.7±0.4)days, shorter than (4.4±1.4)days in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.01). The length of single nail insertion, the number of single nail revision, and the distance between the screws and the front cortex were (6.5±0.4)minutes, (1.1±0.1)times, and (3.5±1.3)mm in the robot nailing group, which were shorter or less than (11.6±0.2)minutes, (1.5±0.2)times, and (12.4±4.7)mm in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.01). The accuracy of the screw placement in the robot nailing group was 90.0% (171/190) and 95.8% (182/190) with level 0 and 0+1 screws, better than 80.0% (240/300) and 89.0% (267/300) in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS, JOA score, NDI, or ASIA grading between the two groups before operation ( P>0.05). The VAS, JOA, and NDI scores at 3 days after operation were (3.1±0.6)points, (12.1±1.2)points, and (15.6±2.9)points, respectively in the robot nailing group, which were better than (5.0±1.4)points, (11.3±1.1)points and (22.5±3.7)points, respectively in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in the ASIA grade between the two groups at 3 days after operation ( P>0.05). There were no significant differences in VAS, JOA, NDI scores, or ASIA grading between the two groups at 3 months after operation and at the last follow-up ( P>0.05). Compared with those before operation, the VAS, JOA, NDI scores, and ASIA grading were significantly improved at 3 days, 3 months after operation and at the last follow-up in the two groups, which were further improved with the passage of time. Two patients in the robot nailing group had pneumonia, with a complication rate of 9% (2/22), while 2 patients in the freehand nailing group had dural sac rupture and cerebrospinal fluid leakage and 3 had lung infection after operation, with a complication rate of 14% (5/35) ( P<0.05). Conclusion:Compared with freehand nailing, the robot system-assisted nailing revision for AS with lower cervical fracture has more advantages in terms of the operative duration, length of hospital stay, intraoperative bleeding volume, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy nailing speed and accuracy, screw holding force, early pain relief, function restoration, and complication rate, despite longer surgical incision.

Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of navigation system and orthopedic robot-assisted nail placement in the treatment of lower cervical fracture and dislocation.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 49 patients with fracture and dislocation of the lower cervical spine who were admitted to Honghui Hospital, Xi′an Jiaotong University School of Medicine from May 2021 to October 2022, including 38 males and 11 females, aged 29-61 years [(39.3±7.3)years]. Injury segments involved C 3 in 12 patients, C 4 in 11, C 5 in 8, C 6 in 9 and C 7 in 9. Twenty-one patients were treated with S8 navigation system (navigation group, 84 screws), and 28 with TINAVI orthopedic robot (robot group, 112 screws). The two groups were compared in terms of the total surgical duration, single screw placement time, total screw placement time, distance between the screw and the anterior cortex, incision length, intraoperative radiation dose, intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay. The height of intervertebral space, Cobb angle, sliding distance between vertebral bodies and American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade were assessed before surgery and at 3 days after surgery. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and neck dysfunction index (NDI) before surgery, at 3 days, 3 months after surgery and at the last follow-up were compared. The accuracy of screw placement, intraoperative invasion rate of adjacent facet joints and rate of postoperative complications (infection, screw loosening, etc.) were evaluated. Results:All the patients were followed up for 12-16 months [(13.6±1.9)months]. In the navigation group, the total surgical duration, distance from the screw to the anterior cortex and the intraoperative radiation dose were (236.2±30.6)minutes, (2.0±0.2)mm and (374.3±90.3)mGy respectively, which were significantly shorter or less than those in the robot group [(278.4±20.7)minutes, (10.6±2.9)mm and (448.4±77.9)mGy] ( P<0.01). The single screw placement time, total screw placement time, incision length and intraoperative blood loss were (3.5±0.4)minutes, (23.9±0.5)minutes, (9.1±2.4)cm and (422.2±30.4)ml respectively, which were significantly longer or more than those in the robot group [(2.6±0.2)minutes, (17.9±0.7)minutes, (6.6±2.6)cm and (360.3±56.3)ml] ( P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups ( P>0.05). No significant differences were observed in the height of the intervertebral space, Cobb angle, sliding distance between the vertebral bodies and ASIA grade between the two groups ( P>0.05). At 3 days after surgery, the height of intervertebral space, Cobb angle, sliding distance between vertebral bodies and ASIA grade in both groups were significantly improved when compared with those before surgery ( P<0.05 or 0.01). There were no significant differences in VAS, JOA scores or NDI between the two groups before surgery, at 3 days, 3 months after surgery and at the last follow-up ( P>0.05). The VAS, JOA scores and NDI in both groups were gradually improved at 3 days, 3 months and at the last follow-up after surgery when compared with those before surgery ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the accuracy of screw placement of levels 0 and 0+1 between the two groups ( P>0.05). No significant difference in the intraoperative invasion rate of adjacent facet joints between the two groups was found ( P>0.05). There were no serious complications such as infection or screw loosening after surgery in both groups. Conclusions:For lower cervical fracture and dislocation, although there are more advantages in total surgical duration, screw holding force and radiation control regarding the navigation system, and more outstanding performance in screw placement efficiency, incision length and intraoperative blood loss regarding the orthopedic robot, both of them can effectively rebuild the cervical structure, improve neurological function, relieve postoperative pain, improve screw placement accuracy and reduce facet joint injury and serious complications. Selection of the best auxiliary screw placement system should comprehensively consider patients′ conditions and the experience of the surgical team.

Thoracolumbar trauma, including fractures, dislocations and spinal cord injuries, often result from high-energy injuries such as traffic accidents and falls from heights. It not only causes severe pain and restricted movement for patients, but also leads to neurological damage and even permanent disability. Currently, the diagnosis and treatment of thoracolumbar trauma are faced with many problems, such as possible missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis, lack of individualized and standardized treatment plans, and lack of objective and quantitative metrics for postoperative assessment. Artificial intelligence (AI) technology offers innovative ideas to these problems. Among them, the core AI technology such as machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), computer vision, and robotics has demonstrated outstanding capabilities in medical image analysis, clinical decision support, etc., which can significantly improve the diagnostic precision, surgical planning efficiency, and postoperative management level of thoracolumbar trauma. At present, application of AI technology in cross-modal data integration, clinical decision support, and long-term efficacy prediction in the field of thoracolumbar trauma remains to be systematically sorted out. To this end, the authors reviewed the research progress of AI technology in the diagnosis, treatment, and postoperative management of thoracolumbar trauma, providing a reference for a wide application of AI technology in the management of thoracolumbar trauma.

Thoracolumbar trauma, including fractures, dislocations and spinal cord injuries, often result from high-energy injuries such as traffic accidents and falls from heights. It not only causes severe pain and restricted movement for patients, but also leads to neurological damage and even permanent disability. Currently, the diagnosis and treatment of thoracolumbar trauma are faced with many problems, such as possible missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis, lack of individualized and standardized treatment plans, and lack of objective and quantitative metrics for postoperative assessment. Artificial intelligence (AI) technology offers innovative ideas to these problems. Among them, the core AI technology such as machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), computer vision, and robotics has demonstrated outstanding capabilities in medical image analysis, clinical decision support, etc., which can significantly improve the diagnostic precision, surgical planning efficiency, and postoperative management level of thoracolumbar trauma. At present, application of AI technology in cross-modal data integration, clinical decision support, and long-term efficacy prediction in the field of thoracolumbar trauma remains to be systematically sorted out. To this end, the authors reviewed the research progress of AI technology in the diagnosis, treatment, and postoperative management of thoracolumbar trauma, providing a reference for a wide application of AI technology in the management of thoracolumbar trauma.

Objective:To compare the efficacy of robot system-assisted versus freehand screw revision for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with lower cervical fractures.Methods:A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 57 patients with AS combined with lower cervical fractures admitted to Honghui Hospital Affiliated to Xi'an Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou Orthopedic Hospital, and Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, including 46 males and 11 females, aged 38-77 years [(65.4±9.5)years]. Injury segments involved C 3 in 7 patients, C 4 in 13, C 5 in 25, C 6 in 10, and C 7 in 2. All the patients underwent revision surgery, among whom, 22 patients were treated with robot system-assisted cervical pedicle screw placement (robot nailing group, with 190 screws), and 35 with freehand cervical pedicle screw placement (freehand nailing group, with 300 screws). The operative duration, intraoperative bleeding volume, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy, incision length, and length of hospital stay of the two groups were compared; the time of single nscrew insertion, the number of single nail revisions, the distance between screws and the anterior cortex, the accuracy of screw placement of grade 0 and grade 0+1 were recorded in the two groups. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Society (JOA) score, neck dysfunction index (NDI), American Spine Injury Association (ASIA) classification before operation, at 3 days, 3 months after operation and at the last follow-up were compared between the two groups. The complication rate was also noted. Results:All the patients were followed up for 12-16 months [(14.3±2.1)months]. The operative duration, intraoperative bleeding volume, and frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy were (186.4±12.9)minutes, (486.1±68.6)ml, and (3.4±1.3)times in the robot nailing group, which were shorter or less than (206.7±14.4)minutes, (660.3±45.2)ml, and (13.5±3.6)times in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.01). The incision length was (9.4±2.4)cm in the robot nailing group, longer than (5.6±1.2)cm in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.01), and the length of hospital stay was (3.7±0.4)days, shorter than (4.4±1.4)days in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.01). The length of single nail insertion, the number of single nail revision, and the distance between the screws and the front cortex were (6.5±0.4)minutes, (1.1±0.1)times, and (3.5±1.3)mm in the robot nailing group, which were shorter or less than (11.6±0.2)minutes, (1.5±0.2)times, and (12.4±4.7)mm in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.01). The accuracy of the screw placement in the robot nailing group was 90.0% (171/190) and 95.8% (182/190) with level 0 and 0+1 screws, better than 80.0% (240/300) and 89.0% (267/300) in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS, JOA score, NDI, or ASIA grading between the two groups before operation ( P>0.05). The VAS, JOA, and NDI scores at 3 days after operation were (3.1±0.6)points, (12.1±1.2)points, and (15.6±2.9)points, respectively in the robot nailing group, which were better than (5.0±1.4)points, (11.3±1.1)points and (22.5±3.7)points, respectively in the freehand nailing group ( P<0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in the ASIA grade between the two groups at 3 days after operation ( P>0.05). There were no significant differences in VAS, JOA, NDI scores, or ASIA grading between the two groups at 3 months after operation and at the last follow-up ( P>0.05). Compared with those before operation, the VAS, JOA, NDI scores, and ASIA grading were significantly improved at 3 days, 3 months after operation and at the last follow-up in the two groups, which were further improved with the passage of time. Two patients in the robot nailing group had pneumonia, with a complication rate of 9% (2/22), while 2 patients in the freehand nailing group had dural sac rupture and cerebrospinal fluid leakage and 3 had lung infection after operation, with a complication rate of 14% (5/35) ( P<0.05). Conclusion:Compared with freehand nailing, the robot system-assisted nailing revision for AS with lower cervical fracture has more advantages in terms of the operative duration, length of hospital stay, intraoperative bleeding volume, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy nailing speed and accuracy, screw holding force, early pain relief, function restoration, and complication rate, despite longer surgical incision.

Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of navigation system and orthopedic robot-assisted nail placement in the treatment of lower cervical fracture and dislocation.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 49 patients with fracture and dislocation of the lower cervical spine who were admitted to Honghui Hospital, Xi′an Jiaotong University School of Medicine from May 2021 to October 2022, including 38 males and 11 females, aged 29-61 years [(39.3±7.3)years]. Injury segments involved C 3 in 12 patients, C 4 in 11, C 5 in 8, C 6 in 9 and C 7 in 9. Twenty-one patients were treated with S8 navigation system (navigation group, 84 screws), and 28 with TINAVI orthopedic robot (robot group, 112 screws). The two groups were compared in terms of the total surgical duration, single screw placement time, total screw placement time, distance between the screw and the anterior cortex, incision length, intraoperative radiation dose, intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay. The height of intervertebral space, Cobb angle, sliding distance between vertebral bodies and American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade were assessed before surgery and at 3 days after surgery. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and neck dysfunction index (NDI) before surgery, at 3 days, 3 months after surgery and at the last follow-up were compared. The accuracy of screw placement, intraoperative invasion rate of adjacent facet joints and rate of postoperative complications (infection, screw loosening, etc.) were evaluated. Results:All the patients were followed up for 12-16 months [(13.6±1.9)months]. In the navigation group, the total surgical duration, distance from the screw to the anterior cortex and the intraoperative radiation dose were (236.2±30.6)minutes, (2.0±0.2)mm and (374.3±90.3)mGy respectively, which were significantly shorter or less than those in the robot group [(278.4±20.7)minutes, (10.6±2.9)mm and (448.4±77.9)mGy] ( P<0.01). The single screw placement time, total screw placement time, incision length and intraoperative blood loss were (3.5±0.4)minutes, (23.9±0.5)minutes, (9.1±2.4)cm and (422.2±30.4)ml respectively, which were significantly longer or more than those in the robot group [(2.6±0.2)minutes, (17.9±0.7)minutes, (6.6±2.6)cm and (360.3±56.3)ml] ( P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups ( P>0.05). No significant differences were observed in the height of the intervertebral space, Cobb angle, sliding distance between the vertebral bodies and ASIA grade between the two groups ( P>0.05). At 3 days after surgery, the height of intervertebral space, Cobb angle, sliding distance between vertebral bodies and ASIA grade in both groups were significantly improved when compared with those before surgery ( P<0.05 or 0.01). There were no significant differences in VAS, JOA scores or NDI between the two groups before surgery, at 3 days, 3 months after surgery and at the last follow-up ( P>0.05). The VAS, JOA scores and NDI in both groups were gradually improved at 3 days, 3 months and at the last follow-up after surgery when compared with those before surgery ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the accuracy of screw placement of levels 0 and 0+1 between the two groups ( P>0.05). No significant difference in the intraoperative invasion rate of adjacent facet joints between the two groups was found ( P>0.05). There were no serious complications such as infection or screw loosening after surgery in both groups. Conclusions:For lower cervical fracture and dislocation, although there are more advantages in total surgical duration, screw holding force and radiation control regarding the navigation system, and more outstanding performance in screw placement efficiency, incision length and intraoperative blood loss regarding the orthopedic robot, both of them can effectively rebuild the cervical structure, improve neurological function, relieve postoperative pain, improve screw placement accuracy and reduce facet joint injury and serious complications. Selection of the best auxiliary screw placement system should comprehensively consider patients′ conditions and the experience of the surgical team.