The pedicle screw accuracy using a robotic system and measured by a novel three-dimensional method.
Accuracy
Pedicle screw
Robotic
Spatial 3D
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Sep 2023
20 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
30
08
2023
accepted:
13
09
2023
medline:
22
9
2023
pubmed:
21
9
2023
entrez:
20
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Robotics in medicine is associated with precision, accuracy, and replicability. Several robotic systems are used in spine surgery. They are all considered shared-control systems, providing "steady-hand" manipulation instruments. Although numerous studies have testified to the benefits of robotic instrumentations, they must address their true accuracy. Our study used the Mazor system under several situations and compared the spatial accuracy of the pedicle screw (PS) insertion and its planned trajectory. We used two cadaveric specimens with intact spinal structures from C7 to S1. PS planning was performed using the two registration methods (preopCT/C-arm or CT-to-fluoroscopy registration). After planning, the implant spatial orientation was defined based on six anatomic parameters using axial and sagittal CT images. Two surgical open and percutaneous access were used to insert the PS. After that, another CT acquisition was taken. Accuracy was classified into optimal, inaccurate and unacceptable according to the degree of screw deviation from its planning using the same spatial orientation method. Based on the type of spatial deviation, we also classified the PS trajectory into 16 pattern errors. Seven (19%) out of 37 implanted screws were considered unacceptable (deviation distances > 2.0 mm or angulation > 5°), and 14 (38%) were inaccurate (> 0.5 mm and ≤ 2.0 mm or > 2.5° and ≤ 5°). CT-to-fluoroscopy registration was superior to preopCT/C-arm (average deviation in 0.9 mm vs. 1.7 mm, respectively, p < 0.003), and percutaneous was slightly better than open but did not reach significance (1.3 mm vs. 1.7 mm, respectively). Regarding pattern error, the tendency was to have more axial than sagittal shifts. Using a quantitative method to categorize the screw 3D position, only 10.8% of the screws were considered unacceptable. However, with a more rigorous concept of inaccuracy, almost half were non-optimal. We also identified that, unlike some previous results, the O-arm registration delivers more accurate implants than the preopCT/C-arm method.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37730623
doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-04206-5
pii: 10.1186/s13018-023-04206-5
pmc: PMC10510280
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
706Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Wang TY, Park C, Dalton T, et al. Robotic navigation in spine surgery: Where are we now and where are we going? J Clin Neurosci. 2021;94:298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2021.10.034 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2021.10.034
pubmed: 34863454
Lieberman IH, Kisinde S, Hesselbacher S. Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement during spine surgery. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2020;10(2):1–15. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.ST.19.00020 .
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.19.00020
Lopez IB, Benzakour A, Mavrogenis A, Benzakour T, Ahmad A, Lemée JM. Robotics in spine surgery: systematic review of literature. Int Orthop. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05508-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s00264-022-05508-9
pubmed: 35849162
Benech CA, Perez R, Benech F, Shirk T, Bucklen BS. A quantitative accuracy assessment of the use of a rigid robotic arm in navigated placement of 726 pedicle screws. BMC Surg. 2022;22(1):385. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01838-y .
doi: 10.1186/s12893-022-01838-y
pubmed: 36357873
pmcid: 9647927
Khan A, Meyers JE, Siasios I, Pollina J. Next-generation robotic spine surgery: first report on feasibility, safety, and learning curve. Oper Neurosurg. 2019;17(1):61–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opy280 .
doi: 10.1093/ons/opy280
Aoude AA, Fortin M, Figueiredo R, Jarzem P, Ouellet J, Weber MH. Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(5):990–1004.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3853-x
pubmed: 25749690
Kim HJ, Jung WI, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kang KT, Yeom JS. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1779 .
doi: 10.1002/rcs.1779
pubmed: 29282850
Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine. 1990;15(1):11–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199001000-00004 .
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199001000-00004
pubmed: 2326693
Heary RF, Bono CM, Black M. Thoracic pedicle screws: postoperative computerized tomography scanning assessment. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;100(4):325–31. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2004.100.4.0325 .
doi: 10.3171/spi.2004.100.4.0325
Ravi B, Zahrai A, Rampersaud R. Clinical accuracy of computer-assisted two-dimensional fluoroscopy for the percutaneous placement of lumbosacral pedicle screws. Spine. 2011;36(1):84–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cbfd09 .
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cbfd09
pubmed: 20595927
Kleck CJ, Cullilmore I, LaFleur M, et al. A new 3-dimensional method for measuring precision in surgical navigation and methods to optimize navigation accuracy. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(6):1764–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4235-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4235-0
pubmed: 26394858
Guha D, Jakubovic R, Gupta S, et al. Spinal intraoperative three-dimensional navigation: correlation between clinical and absolute engineering accuracy. Spine J. 2017;17(4):489–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.020 .
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.020
pubmed: 27777052
Boas FE, Fleischmann D. CT artifacts: causes and reduction techniques. Imaging Med. 2012;4(2):229–40. https://doi.org/10.2217/iim.12.13 .
doi: 10.2217/iim.12.13
Rampersaud YR, Simon DA, Foley KT. Accuracy requirements for image-guided spinal pedicle screw placement. Spine. 2001;26(4):352–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200102150-00010 .
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200102150-00010
pubmed: 11224881
Oertel MF, Hobart J, Stein M, Schreiber V, Scharbrodt W. Clinical and methodological precision of spinal navigation assisted by 3D intraoperative O-arm radiographic imaging. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(4):532–6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.10.SPINE091032 .
doi: 10.3171/2010.10.SPINE091032
pubmed: 21275555
Mandelka E, Gierse J, Gruetzner PA, Franke J, Vetter SY. First clinical experience with a novel 3D C-arm-based system for navigated percutaneous thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement. Medicina. 2022;58(8):1111. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081111 .
doi: 10.3390/medicina58081111
pubmed: 36013578
pmcid: 9414596
Elswick CM, Strong MJ, Joseph JR, Saadeh Y, Oppenlander M, Park P. Robotic-assisted spinal surgery: current generation instrumentation and new applications. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2020;31(1):103–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2019.08.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2019.08.012
pubmed: 31739920
Vardiman AB, Wallace DJ, Crawford NR, Riggleman JR, Ahrendtsen LA, Ledonio CG. Pedicle screw accuracy in clinical utilization of minimally invasive navigated robot-assisted spine surgery. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(3):409–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00994-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s11701-019-00994-3
pubmed: 31321615
Joseph JR, Smith BW, Liu X, Park P. Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E2. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.2.FOCUS16544 .
doi: 10.3171/2017.2.FOCUS16544
pubmed: 28463618
Xiao R, Miller JA, Sabharwal NC, et al. Clinical outcomes following spinal fusion using an intraoperative computed tomographic 3d imaging system. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(5):628–37. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16373 .
doi: 10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16373
pubmed: 28291408
Larson AN, Santos ERG, Polly DW, et al. Pediatric pedicle screw placement using intraoperative computed tomography and 3-dimensional image-guided navigation. Spine. 2012;37(3):E188–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822a2e0a .
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822a2e0a
pubmed: 21738101
Luo TD, Polly DW, Ledonio CG, Wetjen NM, Larson AN. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in children 10 years or younger using navigation and intraoperative CT. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(3):E135–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000230 .
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000230
pubmed: 27007788
Lee NJ, Buchanan IA, Boddapati V, et al. Do robot-related complications influence 1 year reoperations and other clinical outcomes after robot-assisted lumbar arthrodesis? A multicenter assessment of 320 patients. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):308. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02452-z .
doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02452-z
pubmed: 33980261
pmcid: 8114480
Khan A, Soliman MAR, Lee NJ, et al. CT-to-fluoroscopy registration versus scan-and-plan registration for robot-assisted insertion of lumbar pedicle screws. Neurosurg Focus. 2022;52(1):E8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2021.10.FOCUS21506 .
doi: 10.3171/2021.10.FOCUS21506
pubmed: 34973678
Kantelhardt SR, Martinez R, Baerwinkel S, Burger R, Giese A, Rohde V. Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(6):860–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1729-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1729-2
pubmed: 21384205
pmcid: 3099153