Accuracy of robot-assisted versus conventional freehand pedicle screw placement in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated differences in accuracy, operation time, and radiation exposure time between robot-assisted and freehand techniques for pedicle screw insertion. Two investigators independently searched for articles on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2012 to 2019. The final meta-analysis included seven RCTs. We compared the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, operation time, and radiation exposure time between robot-assisted and conventional freehand groups. Seven RCTs included 540 patients and placement of 2,476 pedicle screws, of which 1,220 were inserted using the robot-assisted technique and 1,256 were inserted using the conventional freehand technique. The pedicle screw positions were classified using the Gertzbein and Robbins classification (grade A-E). The combined results of Grade A [odds ratio (OR) =1.68; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.82-3.44; P=0.16), Grade A+B (OR =1.70; 95% CI: 0.47-6.13; P=0.42), and Grade C+D+E (OR =0.59; 95% CI: 0.16-2.12; P=0.42) for the accuracy rate revealed no significant difference between the two groups. Subgroup analysis results revealed that the TiRobot-assisted technique presented a significantly improved pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate compared with that of the conventional freehand technique, based on Grade A, Grade A+B, and Grade C+D+E classifications. The SpineAssist-assisted technique presented an inferior pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate compared with that of the conventional freehand technique, based on Grade A, Grade A+B, and Grade C+D+E classifications. No difference between the Renaissance-assisted and conventional freehand techniques was noted for pedicle screw insertion accuracy rates, based on both Grade A (OR =1.58; 95% CI: 0.85-2.96; P=0.15), Grade A+B (OR =2.20; 95% CI: 0.39-12.43; P=0.37), and Grade C+D+E (OR =0.45; 95% CI: 0.08-2.56; P=0.37) classifications. Regarding operation time, robot-assisted surgery had significantly longer operation time than conventional freehand surgery. The robot-assisted group had significantly shorter radiation exposure time. Regarding the pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate, the TiRobot-assisted technique was superior, the SpineAssist-assisted technique was inferior, and Renaissance was similar to the conventional freehand technique.

Informations de copyright

2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-1106). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.