Hybrid-3D robotic suite in spine and trauma surgery - experiences in 210 patients.
Humans
Male
Female
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Robotic Surgical Procedures
/ methods
Adult
Aged
Young Adult
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
/ methods
Spine
/ surgery
Spinal Injuries
/ surgery
Adolescent
Orthopedic Procedures
/ methods
Pedicle Screws
Aged, 80 and over
Prospective Studies
Surgery, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Acute Care Surgery
Acetabulum
Cone beam CT (CBCT)
Hybrid OR
Navigation
Neurosurgery
Pelvis
Robotic arm
Robotics
Spine surgery
Trauma surgery
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:
14 Sep 2024
14 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
14
07
2024
accepted:
31
08
2024
medline:
14
9
2024
pubmed:
14
9
2024
entrez:
13
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In modern Hybrid ORs, the synergies of navigation and robotics are assumed to contribute to the optimisation of the treatment in trauma, orthopaedic and spine surgery. Despite promising evidence in the area of navigation and robotics, previous publications have not definitively proven the potential benefits. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the potential benefit and clinical outcome of patients treated in a fully equipped 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR. Prospective data was collected (March 2022- March 2024) after implementation of a fully equipped 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR ("Robotic Suite") in the authors level 1 trauma centre. The OR includes a navigation unit, a cone beam CT (CBCT), a robotic arm and mixed reality glasses. Surgeries with different indications of the spine, the pelvis (pelvic ring and acetabulum) and the extremities were performed. Spinal and non-spinal screws were inserted. The collected data was analysed retrospectively. Pedicle screw accuracy was graded according to the Gertzbein and Robbins (GR) classification. A total of n = 210 patients (118 m:92f) were treated in our 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR, with 1171 screws inserted. Among these patients, 23 patients (11.0%) arrived at the hospital via the trauma room with an average Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 25.7. There were 1035 (88.4%) spinal screws inserted at an accuracy rate of 98.7% (CI95%: 98.1-99.4%; 911 GR-A & 111 GR-B screws). The number of non-spinal screws were 136 (11.6%) with an accuracy rate of 99.3% (CI95%: 97.8-100.0%; 135 correctly placed screws). This resulted in an overall accuracy rate of 98.8% (CI95%: 98.2-99.4%). The robotic arm was used in 152 cases (72.4%), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was performed in 139 cases (66.2%) and wound infection occurred in 4 cases (1,9%). Overall, no revisions were needed. By extending the scope of application, this study showed that interventions in a fully equipped 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR can be successfully performed not only on the spine, but also on the pelvis and extremities. In trauma, orthopaedics and spinal surgery, navigation and robotics can be used to perform operations with a high degree of precision, increased safety, reduced radiation exposure for the OR-team and a very low complication rate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In modern Hybrid ORs, the synergies of navigation and robotics are assumed to contribute to the optimisation of the treatment in trauma, orthopaedic and spine surgery. Despite promising evidence in the area of navigation and robotics, previous publications have not definitively proven the potential benefits. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the potential benefit and clinical outcome of patients treated in a fully equipped 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR.
METHODS
METHODS
Prospective data was collected (March 2022- March 2024) after implementation of a fully equipped 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR ("Robotic Suite") in the authors level 1 trauma centre. The OR includes a navigation unit, a cone beam CT (CBCT), a robotic arm and mixed reality glasses. Surgeries with different indications of the spine, the pelvis (pelvic ring and acetabulum) and the extremities were performed. Spinal and non-spinal screws were inserted. The collected data was analysed retrospectively. Pedicle screw accuracy was graded according to the Gertzbein and Robbins (GR) classification.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of n = 210 patients (118 m:92f) were treated in our 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR, with 1171 screws inserted. Among these patients, 23 patients (11.0%) arrived at the hospital via the trauma room with an average Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 25.7. There were 1035 (88.4%) spinal screws inserted at an accuracy rate of 98.7% (CI95%: 98.1-99.4%; 911 GR-A & 111 GR-B screws). The number of non-spinal screws were 136 (11.6%) with an accuracy rate of 99.3% (CI95%: 97.8-100.0%; 135 correctly placed screws). This resulted in an overall accuracy rate of 98.8% (CI95%: 98.2-99.4%). The robotic arm was used in 152 cases (72.4%), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was performed in 139 cases (66.2%) and wound infection occurred in 4 cases (1,9%). Overall, no revisions were needed.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
By extending the scope of application, this study showed that interventions in a fully equipped 3D-Navigation Hybrid OR can be successfully performed not only on the spine, but also on the pelvis and extremities. In trauma, orthopaedics and spinal surgery, navigation and robotics can be used to perform operations with a high degree of precision, increased safety, reduced radiation exposure for the OR-team and a very low complication rate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39272126
doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-05044-9
pii: 10.1186/s13018-024-05044-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
565Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Settmacher U. [Hybrid operation theatre]. Chirurg. 2013;84(12):1020–1.
pubmed: 24220953
doi: 10.1007/s00104-013-2553-5
Richter PH, Gebhard F. [The interdisciplinary hybrid operation theatre. Current experience and future]. Chirurg, 2013. 84(12): pp. 1036-40.
Marketos SG, Skiadas P. Hippocrates. The father of spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(13):1381–7.
pubmed: 10404583
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199907010-00018
Tarpada SP, Morris MT, Burton DA. Spinal fusion surgery: a historical perspective. J Orthop. 2017;14(1):134–6.
pubmed: 27872518
doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2016.10.029
Markham JW. The history of laminectomy prior to 1866. Bull Hist Med. 1952;26(4):375–84.
pubmed: 14954289
Walker CT, et al. History and advances in spinal neurosurgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(6):775–85.
pubmed: 31786543
doi: 10.3171/2019.9.SPINE181362
Enchev Y. Neuronavigation: geneology, reality, and prospects. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27(3):E11.
pubmed: 19722813
doi: 10.3171/2009.6.FOCUS09109
Mao JZ, et al. Technologic Evolution of Navigation and Robotics in spine surgery: a historical perspective. World Neurosurg. 2021;145:159–67.
pubmed: 32916361
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.08.224
Haemmerli J, et al. Comparison of intraoperative CT- and cone beam CT-based spinal navigation for the treatment of atlantoaxial instability. Spine J. 2023;23(12):1799–807.
pubmed: 37619869
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2023.08.010
Morrell ALG, et al. The history of robotic surgery and its evolution: when illusion becomes reality. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2021;48:e20202798.
pubmed: 33470371
pmcid: 10683436
doi: 10.1590/0100-6991e-20202798
Staub BN, Sadrameli SS. The use of robotics in minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2019;5(Suppl 1):S31–40.
pubmed: 31380491
pmcid: 6626754
doi: 10.21037/jss.2019.04.16
Oh BK, et al. A single-center experience of robotic-assisted spine surgery in Korea: analysis of Screw Accuracy, potential risk factor of Screw Malposition and learning curve. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2024;67(1):60–72.
pubmed: 38224963
doi: 10.3340/jkns.2023.0128
Kantelhardt SR, et al. 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.
pubmed: 21384205
pmcid: 3099153
doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1729-2
Shin BJ, et al. Pedicle screw navigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perforation risk for computer-navigated versus freehand insertion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(2):113–22.
pubmed: 22724594
doi: 10.3171/2012.5.SPINE11399
Luther N, et al. Comparison of navigated versus non-navigated pedicle screw placement in 260 patients and 1434 screws: screw accuracy, screw size, and the complexity of surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(5):E298–303.
pubmed: 23511642
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828af33e
Bredow J, et al. The accuracy of 3D fluoroscopy-navigated screw insertion in the upper and subaxial cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(12):2967–76.
pubmed: 25925249
doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3974-2
Tkatschenko D, et al. Navigated percutaneous versus open pedicle screw implantation using intraoperative CT and robotic cone-beam CT imaging. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(4):803–12.
pubmed: 31820094
doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06242-4
Pojskić M et al. Initial Intraoperative Experience with Robotic-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement with Cirq(
Farah K, et al. Robotic assistance for minimally invasive cervical pedicle instrumentation: report on feasibility and safety. World Neurosurg. 2021;150:e777–82.
pubmed: 33831617
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.03.150
Abel F, et al. Robotic-navigated assistance in spine surgery. Bone Joint J. 2023;105–b(5):543–50.
pubmed: 37121590
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.105B5.BJJ-2022-0810.R3
Gabrovsky N, Ilkov P, Laleva M. Cirq
pubmed: 37383441
pmcid: 10293294
doi: 10.1016/j.bas.2023.101717
Wang X et al. Effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw instrumentation in spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robotic Surg, 2024. 18(1).
Alaei P, Spezi E. Imaging dose from cone beam computed tomography in radiation therapy. Phys Med. 2015;31(7):647–58.
pubmed: 26148865
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.06.003
Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990;15(1):11–4.
pubmed: 2326693
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199001000-00004
Onyekwelu I, et al. Surgical Wound classification and Surgical Site infections in the Orthopaedic Patient. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2017;1(3):e022.
pubmed: 30211353
pmcid: 6132296
Schupper AJ, et al. Improving Surgeon Well-Being: Ergonomics in Neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 2023;175:e1220–5.
pubmed: 37427701
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.04.102
Mengis-Palleck CL, et al. Surgical Site infection after Polymethyl Methacrylate Pedicle Screw Augmentation in osteoporotic spinal vertebrae: a Series of 537 cases. Int J Spine Surg. 2023;17(4):587–97.
pubmed: 37217274
pmcid: 10478696
doi: 10.14444/8474
Janssen IK, et al. Minimally invasive posterior pedicle screw fixation versus open instrumentation in patients with thoracolumbar spondylodiscitis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021;163(6):1553–60.
pubmed: 33655377
doi: 10.1007/s00701-021-04744-z
Akazawa T et al. Safety of robotic-assisted screw placement for spine surgery: experience from the initial 125 cases. J Orthop Sci, 2023.
Jung B, et al. Robotic-assisted Versus Fluoroscopic-guided surgery on the Accuracy of Spine Pedicle Screw Placement: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e54969.
pubmed: 38410625
pmcid: 10896625
Lopez IB, et al. Robotics in spine surgery: systematic review of literature. Int Orthop. 2023;47(2):447–56.
pubmed: 35849162
doi: 10.1007/s00264-022-05508-9
Beyer RS, et al. Spinal robotics in cervical spine surgery: a systematic review with key concepts and technical considerations. J Neurosurg Spine. 2023;38(1):66–74.
pubmed: 36087333
doi: 10.3171/2022.7.SPINE22473
Zhou LP, et al. Clinical application of spinal robot in cervical spine surgery: safety and accuracy of posterior pedicle screw placement in comparison with conventional freehand methods. Neurosurg Rev. 2023;46(1):118.
pubmed: 37166553
doi: 10.1007/s10143-023-02027-y
Asada T, et al. Robot-navigated pedicle screw insertion can reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay: analysis of 1,633 patients utilizing propensity score matching. Spine J. 2024;24(1):118–24.
pubmed: 37704046
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2023.09.004
Mendelsohn D, et al. Patient and surgeon radiation exposure during spinal instrumentation using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation. Spine J. 2016;16(3):343–54.
pubmed: 26686604
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.11.020
Elbakri IA, Kirkpatrick ID. Dose-length product to effective dose conversion factors for common computed tomography examinations based on Canadian clinical experience. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2013;64(1):15–7.
pubmed: 22406136
doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2011.12.013
Compagnone G, et al. Calculation of conversion factors for effective dose for various interventional radiology procedures. Med Phys. 2012;39(5):2491–8.
pubmed: 22559619
doi: 10.1118/1.3702457
Chen DS, et al. Dose-area product-to-effective dose Conversion coefficients for pelvic radiography using a Monte Carlo Program. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(3):679–84.
pubmed: 32755183
doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.22013
Huber-Wagner S, et al. Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: a retrospective, multicentre study. Lancet. 2009;373(9673):1455–61.
pubmed: 19321199
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60232-4
Pape HC, et al. Pathophysiology in patients with polytrauma. Injury. 2022;53(7):2400–12.
pubmed: 35577600
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.04.009
Jones EL, et al. Cervical pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws. Anatomic feasibility and biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(9):977–82.
pubmed: 9152447
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199705010-00009
Zhou LP, et al. Robotics in cervical spine surgery: feasibility and safety of posterior screw Placement. Neurospine. 2023;20(1):329–39.
pubmed: 37016881
pmcid: 10080448
doi: 10.14245/ns.2244952.476
Garg B, Mehta N, Malhotra R. Robotic spine surgery: ushering in a new era. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020;11(5):753–60.
pubmed: 32904238
pmcid: 7452360
doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.04.034
Farah K, et al. Cirq
pubmed: 32710770
doi: 10.1093/ons/opaa208
Wu J et al. Accuracy and clinical characteristics of robot-assisted cervical spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop, 2024.
Chesney K, et al. Cirq robotic arm-assisted transpedicular instrumentation with intraoperative navigation: technical note and case series with 714 thoracolumbar screws. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(4):893–8.
pubmed: 34606045
doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01313-5
Devito DP, et al. Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with SpineAssist surgical robot: retrospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(24):2109–15.
pubmed: 21079498
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d323ab
Kanaly CW, et al. A retrospective analysis of Pedicle Screw Placement Accuracy using the ExcelsiusGPS Robotic Guidance System: Case Series. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2023;24(3):242–7.
pubmed: 36454079
doi: 10.1227/ons.0000000000000498
Vardiman AB, et al. Pedicle screw accuracy in clinical utilization of minimally invasive navigated robot-assisted spine surgery. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(3):409–13.
pubmed: 31321615
doi: 10.1007/s11701-019-00994-3
Perdomo-Pantoja A, et al. Accuracy of current techniques for Placement of Pedicle screws in the spine: a comprehensive systematic review and Meta-analysis of 51,161 screws. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:664–e6783.
pubmed: 30880208
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.217
Naik A, et al. Trends in Technology for Pedicle Screw Placement: a temporal Meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2023;48(11):791–9.
pubmed: 36799728
Gilani S, et al. The Use of a robotic arm for fixation of pelvic fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2023;37(11s):S28–32.
pubmed: 37828699
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002691
Yu T, et al. Computer navigation-assisted minimally invasive percutaneous screw placement for pelvic fractures. World J Clin Cases. 2020;8(12):2464–72.
pubmed: 32607323
pmcid: 7322419
doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i12.2464
Schuijt HJ, et al. Robot-assisted fracture fixation in orthopaedic trauma surgery: a systematic review. OTA Int. 2021;4(4):e153.
pubmed: 34765903
pmcid: 8575426
doi: 10.1097/OI9.0000000000000153
Küper MA, et al. Robotic-assisted plate osteosynthesis of the anterior pelvic ring and acetabulum: an anatomical feasibility study. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(6):1401–7.
pubmed: 35147842
doi: 10.1007/s11701-022-01381-1
Smith AF, Carlson JB. Robotic-assisted percutaneous pelvis fixation: a case report. Clin Case Rep. 2023;11(6):e7527.
pubmed: 37323256
pmcid: 10264929
doi: 10.1002/ccr3.7527
Lee NJ, et al. The accuracy of robot-assisted S2 alar-iliac screw placement at two different healthcare centers. J Spine Surg. 2021;7(3):326–34.
pubmed: 34734137
pmcid: 8511558
doi: 10.21037/jss-21-14
Laratta JL, et al. Accuracy of S2 Alar-Iliac Screw Placement under Robotic Guidance. Spine Deform. 2018;6(2):130–6.
pubmed: 29413734
doi: 10.1016/j.jspd.2017.08.009
Bederman SS, et al. Robotic Guidance for S2-Alar-iliac screws in spinal deformity correction. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(1):E49–53.
pubmed: 28107243
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182a3572b
Arora A, Berven S. Challenges and complications in Freehand S2-Alar-iliac spinopelvic fixation and the potential for Robotics to Enhance Patient Safety. Global Spine J. 2022;12(2suppl):s45–52.
doi: 10.1177/21925682211036664
Fiani B, et al. Impact of robot-assisted spine surgery on health care quality and neurosurgical economics: a systemic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2020;43(1):17–25.
pubmed: 29611081
doi: 10.1007/s10143-018-0971-z
Zhang Q, et al. Comparison of Superior-Level Facet Joint violations between Robot-assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement and Conventional Open fluoroscopic-guided Pedicle Screw Placement. Orthop Surg. 2019;11(5):850–6.
pubmed: 31663290
pmcid: 6819175
doi: 10.1111/os.12534
Ahern DP, et al. Image-guidance, Robotics, and the future of spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33(5):179–84.
pubmed: 31425306
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000809
Fan M, et al. Improved accuracy of cervical spinal surgery with Robot-assisted screw insertion: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(5):285–91.
pubmed: 31568094
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003258