Comparison of No Tap (two-step) and tapping robotic assisted cortical bone trajectory screw insertion.
Cortical bone trajectory
Lumbar spine instrumentation
New technique
Robotic assisted surgery
Journal
Journal of robotic surgery
ISSN: 1863-2491
Titre abrégé: J Robot Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300401
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 May 2024
08 May 2024
Historique:
received:
09
01
2024
accepted:
28
02
2024
medline:
8
5
2024
pubmed:
8
5
2024
entrez:
7
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Workflow for cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws includes tapping line-to-line or under tapping by 1 mm. We describe a non-tapping, two-step workflow for CBT screw placement, and compare the safety profile and time savings to the Tap (three-step) workflow. Patients undergoing robotic assisted 1-3 level posterior fusion with CBT screws for degenerative conditions were identified and separated into either a No-Tap or Tap workflow. Number of total screws, screw-related complications, estimated blood loss, operative time, robotic time, and return to the operating room were collected and analyzed. There were 91 cases (458 screws) in the No-Tap and 88 cases (466 screws) in the Tap groups, with no difference in demographics, revision status, ASA grade, approach, number of levels fused or diagnosis between cohorts. Total robotic time was lower in the No-Tap (26.7 min) versus the Tap group (30.3 min, p = 0.053). There was no difference in the number of malpositioned screws identified intraoperatively (10 vs 6, p = 0.427), screws converted to freehand (3 vs 3, p = 0.699), or screws abandoned (3 vs 2, p = 1.000). No pedicle/pars fracture or fixation failure was seen in the No-Tap cohort and one in the Tap cohort (p = 1.00). No patients in either cohort were returned to OR for malpositioned screws. This study showed that the No-Tap screw insertion workflow for robot-assisted CBT reduces robotic time without increasing complications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38714574
doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01890-1
pii: 10.1007/s11701-024-01890-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
204Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
D’Souza M, Gendreau J, Feng A, Kim LH, Ho AL, Veeravagu A (2019) Robotic-assisted spine surgery: history, efficacy, cost and future trends. Robot Surg 7(6):9–23. https://doi.org/10.2147/RSRR.S190720 . (Erratum.In:RobotSurg.2019Dec,23(6),pp.25.PMID:31807602;PMCID:PMC6844237)
doi: 10.2147/RSRR.S190720
Lieberman IH, Kisinde S, Hesselbacher S (2020) Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement during spine surgery. JBJS Essent Surg Tech 10(2):e0020. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.ST.19.00020 . (PMID:32944411;PMCID:PMC7478327)
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.19.00020
pubmed: 32944411
pmcid: 7478327
Buza JA 3rd, Good CR, Lehman RA Jr et al (2021) Robotic-assisted cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws using the Mazor X Stealth Edition (MXSE) system: workflow and technical tips for safe and efficient use. J Robot Surg 15(1):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01147-7 . (Epub 2020 Sep 28. PMID: 32989623)
doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01147-7
pubmed: 32989623
Mao JZ, Khan A, Soliman MAR et al (2021) Use of the scan-and-plan workflow in next-generation robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion: retrospective cohort study and literature review. World Neurosurg 151:e10–e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.02.119 . (Epub 2021 Mar 6 PMID: 33684584)
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.02.119
pubmed: 33684584
Matsukawa K, Kaito T, Abe Y (2020) Accuracy of cortical bone trajectory screw placement using patient-specific template guide system. Neurosurg Rev 43(4):1135–1142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-019-01140-1 . (Epub 2019 Jul 3 PMID: 31270704)
doi: 10.1007/s10143-019-01140-1
pubmed: 31270704
Hu X, Ohnmeiss DD, Lieberman IH (2013) Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement: lessons learned from the first 102 patients. Eur Spine J 22(3):661–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2499-1 . (Epub 2012 Sep 14. PMID: 22975723; PMCID: PMC3585630)
doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2499-1
pubmed: 22975723
Fiani B, Quadri SA, Farooqui M et al (2020) Impact of robot-assisted spine surgery on health care quality and neurosurgical economics: a systemic review. Neurosurg Rev 43(1):17–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-018-0971-z . (Epub 2018 Apr 3 PMID: 29611081)
doi: 10.1007/s10143-018-0971-z
pubmed: 29611081
Kantelhardt SR, Martinez R, Baerwinkel S, Burger R, Giese A, Rohde V (2011) Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J 20(6):860–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1729-2 . (Epub 2011 Mar 8. PMID: 21384205; PMCID: PMC3099153)
doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1729-2
pubmed: 21384205
pmcid: 3099153
Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC et al (2009) Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J 9(5):366–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.008 . (Epub 2008 Sep 14 PMID: 18790684)
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.008
pubmed: 18790684
Hoffman H, Verhave B, Jalal MS, Beutler T, Galgano MA, Chin LS (2019) Comparison of cortical bone trajectory screw placement using the midline lumbar fusion technique to traditional pedicle screws: a case-control study. Int J Spine Surg 13(1):33–38. https://doi.org/10.14444/6005 . (PMID:30805284;PMCID:PMC6383460)
doi: 10.14444/6005
pubmed: 30805284
pmcid: 6383460
Hung CW, Wu MF, Hong RT, Weng MJ, Yu GF, Kao CH (2016) Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with conventional and cortical bone trajectory. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 145:41–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.03.005 . (Epub 2016 Mar 23 PMID: 27064861)
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.03.005
pubmed: 27064861
Matsukawa K, Yato Y (2017) Lumbar pedicle screw fixation with cortical bone trajectory: a review from anatomical and biomechanical standpoints. Spine Surg Relat Res 1(4):164–173. https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.1.2017-0006 . (PMID:31440629;PMCID:PMC6698564)
doi: 10.22603/ssrr.1.2017-0006
pubmed: 31440629
pmcid: 6698564
Baluch DA, Patel AA, Lullo B et al (2014) Effect of physiological loads on cortical and traditional pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000553 . (PMID: 25099320)
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000553
pubmed: 25099320
Phan K, Hogan J, Maharaj M, Mobbs RJ (2015) Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screw placement: a review of published reports. Orthop Surg 7(3):213–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12185.PMID:26311095;PMCID:PMC6583742
doi: 10.1111/os.12185.PMID:26311095;PMCID:PMC6583742
pubmed: 26311095
pmcid: 6583742
Keorochana G, Pairuchvej S, Trathitephun W, Arirachakaran A, Predeeprompan P, Kongtharvonskul J (2017) Comparative outcomes of cortical screw trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion: systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 102:340–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.010 . (Epub 2017 Mar 16 PMID: 28315800)
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.010
pubmed: 28315800
Pfeiffer FM, Abernathie DL, Smith DE (2006) A comparison of pullout strength for pedicle screws of different designs: a study using tapped and untapped pilot holes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000244658.35865.59 . (Erratum in: Spine. 2007 Jun 15;32(14):1573. Smith, Douglas E [added]. PMID: 17077722)
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000244658.35865.59
pubmed: 17077722
Mizuno M, Kuraishi K, Umeda Y, Sano T, Tsuji M, Suzuki H (2014) Midline lumbar fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 54(9):716–721. https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.st.2013-0395 . (Epub 2014 Aug 29. PMID: 25169139; PMCID: PMC4533370)
doi: 10.2176/nmc.st.2013-0395
pubmed: 25169139
Kaye ID, Prasad SK, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS (2017) The cortical bone trajectory for pedicle screw insertion. JBJS Rev 5(8):e13. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.16.00120 . (PMID: 28857932)
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.16.00120
pubmed: 28857932
Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, Nemoto K (2015) Biomechanical evaluation of the fixation strength of lumbar pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory: a finite element study. J Neurosurg Spine 23(4):471–478. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.SPINE141103 . (Epub 2015 Jul 10 PMID: 26161515)
doi: 10.3171/2015.1.SPINE141103
pubmed: 26161515
Ahern DP, Gibbons D, Schroeder GD, Vaccaro AR, Butler JS (2020) Image-guidance, robotics, and the future of spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg 33(5):179–184. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000809 . (PMID: 31425306)
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000809
pubmed: 31425306
Zhang L, Tian N, Yang J, Ni W, Jin L (2020) Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21(1):536. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03535-4.PMID:32781995;PMCID:PMC7422524
doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03535-4.PMID:32781995;PMCID:PMC7422524
pubmed: 32781995
pmcid: 7422524
Senoglu M, Karadag A, Kinali B, Bozkurt B, Middlebrooks EH, Grande AW (2017) Cortical bone trajectory screw for lumbar fixation: a quantitative anatomic and morphometric evaluation. World Neurosurg 103:694–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.137 . (Epub 2017 May 3 PMID: 28478246)
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.137
pubmed: 28478246
Misenhimer GR, Peek RD, Wiltse LL, Rothman SL, Widell EH Jr (1989) Anatomic analysis of pedicle cortical and cancellous diameter as related to screw size. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14(4):367–372. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198904000-00004 . (PMID: 2718038)
doi: 10.1097/00007632-198904000-00004
pubmed: 2718038
Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H et al (2016) Biomechanical evaluation of fixation strength among different sizes of pedicle screws using the cortical bone trajectory: what is the ideal screw size for optimal fixation? Acta Neurochir (Wien) 158(3):465–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2705-8 . (Epub 2016 Jan 15 PMID: 26769471)
doi: 10.1007/s00701-016-2705-8
pubmed: 26769471