European Spine Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 661–666 | Cite as

Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement: lessons learned from the first 102 patients

  • Xiaobang Hu
  • Donna D. Ohnmeiss
  • Isador H. Lieberman
Original Article



Surgeons’ interest in image and/or robotic guidance for spinal implant placement is increasing. This technology is continually improving and may be particularly useful in patients with challenging anatomy. Only through careful clinical evaluation can its successful applications, limitations, and areas for improvement be defined. This study evaluates the outcomes of robotic-assisted screw placement in a consecutive series of 102 patients.


Data were recorded from technical notes and operative records created immediately following each surgery case, in which the robotic system was used to guide pedicle screw placement. All cases were performed at the same hospital by a single surgeon. The majority of patients had spinal deformity and/or previous spine surgery. Each planned screw placement was classified as: (1) successful/accurately placed screw using robotic guidance; (2) screw malpositioned using robot; (3) use of robot aborted and screw placed manually; (4) planned screw not placed as screw deemed non essential for construct stability. Data from each case were reviewed by two independent researchers to indentify the diagnosis, number of attempted robotic guided screw placements and the outcome of the attempted placement as well as complications or reasons for non-placement.


Robotic-guided screw placement was successfully used in 95 out of 102 patients. In those 95 patients, 949 screws (87.5 % of 1,085 planned screws) were successfully implanted. Eleven screws (1.0 %) placed using the robotic system were misplaced (all presumably due to “skiving” of the drill bit or trocar off the side of the facet). Robotic guidance was aborted and 110 screws (10.1 %) were manually placed, generally due to poor registration and/or technical trajectory issues. Fifteen screws (1.4 %) were not placed after intraoperative determination that the screw was not essential for construct stability. The robot was not used as planned in seven patients, one due to severe deformity, one due to very high body mass index, one due to extremely poor bone quality, one due to registration difficulty caused by previously placed loosened hardware, one due to difficulty with platform mounting and two due to device technical issues.


Of the 960 screws that were implanted using the robot, 949 (98.9 %) were successfully and accurately implanted and 11 (1.1 %) were malpositioned, despite the fact that the majority of patients had significant spinal deformities and/or previous spine surgeries. “Tool skiving” was thought to be the inciting issue with the misplaced screws. Intraoperative anteroposterior and oblique fluoroscopic imaging for registration is critical and was the limiting issue in four of the seven aborted cases.


Pedicle screws Robotic-assisted Minimally invasive Spinal surgery 


Conflict of interest

Xiaobang Hu received travel support for lecturing from Mazor Robotics. Donna D. Ohnmeiss is employed by a foundation that receives funding to conduct training labs from Mazor Robotics. Isador H. Lieberman receives royalty, intellectual property rights, consulting fee and ownership interest from Mazor Robotics.


  1. 1.
    Podolsky DJ, Martin AR, Whyne CM, Massicotte EM, Hardisty MR, Ginsberg HJ (2010) Exploring the role of 3-dimensional simulation in surgical training: feedback from a pilot study. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:e70–e74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jutte PC, Castelein RM (2002) Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations. Eur Spine J 11:594–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kosmopoulos V, Schizas C (2007) Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine 32:E111–E120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Minami A (2003) Improved accuracy of computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw insertion. J Neurosurg 99:257–263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rajasekaran S, Vidyadhara S, Ramesh P, Shetty AP (2007) Randomized clinical study to compare the accuracy of navigated and non-navigated thoracic pedicle screws in deformity correction surgeries. Spine 32:E56–E64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tian NF, Huang QS, Zhou P, Zhou Y, Wu RK, Lou Y, Xu HZ (2011) Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Spine J 20(6):846–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lieberman IH, Togawa D, Kayanja MM, Reinhardt MK, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Benzel EC (2006) Bone-mounted miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw placement: Part I—Technical development and a test case result. Neurosurgery 59:641–650 (Discussion 641–650)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merloz P, Troccaz J, Vouaillat H, Vasile C, Tonetti J, Eid A, Plaweski S (2007) Fluoroscopy-based navigation system in spine surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 221:813–820PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shoda N, Nakajima S, Seichi A, Kan A, Iwasaki M, Kitagawa T, Kawaguchi H, Nakamura K (2002) Computer-assisted anterior spinal surgery for a case of recurrent giant cell tumor. J Orthop Sci 7:392–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Togawa D, Kayanja MM, Reinhardt MK, Shoham M, Balter A, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Benzel EC, Lieberman IH (2007) Bone-mounted miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw placement: part 2–Evaluation of system accuracy. Neurosurgery 60:ONS129–ONS139 (Discussion ONS139)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang HC, Yang YL, Lin WC, Chen WF, Yang TM, Lin YJ, Rau CS, Lee TC (2008) Computer-assisted pedicle screw placement for thoracolumbar spine fracture with separate spinal reference clamp placement and registration. Surg Neurol 69:597–601 (Discussion 601)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Devito DP, Kaplan L, Dietl R, Pfeiffer M, Horne D, Silberstein B, Hardenbrook M, Kiriyanthan G, Barzilay Y, Bruskin A, Sackerer D, Alexandrovsky V, Stuer C, Burger R, Maeurer J, Donald GD, Schoenmayr R, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Schmieder K, Pechlivanis I, Kim IS, Meyer B, Shoham M (2010) Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with spineassist surgical robot: retrospective study. Spine 35:2109–2115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Takahata M, Sudo H, Ohshima S, Minami A (2007) Accuracy analysis of pedicle screw placement in posterior scoliosis surgery: comparison between conventional fluoroscopic and computer-assisted technique. Spine 32:1543–1550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pechlivanis I, Kiriyanthan G, Engelhardt M, Scholz M, Lucke S, Harders A, Schmieder K (2009) Percutaneous placement of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine using a bone mounted miniature robotic system: first experiences and accuracy of screw placement. Spine 34:392–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Cho YS, Riew KD (2004) Free hand pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine: is it safe? Spine 29:333–342 (Discussion 342)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaines RW Jr (2000) The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg 82-A:1458–1476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hicks JM, Singla A, Shen FH, Arlet V (2010) Complications of pedicle screw fixation in scoliosis surgery: a systematic review. Spine 35:E465–E470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carbone JJ, Tortolani PJ, Quartararo LG (2003) Fluoroscopically assisted pedicle screw fixation for thoracic and thoracolumbar injuries: technique and short-term complications. Spine 28:91–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nottmeier EW, Seemer W, Young PM (2009) Placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws using three-dimensional image guidance: experience in a large patient cohort. J Neurosurg 10:33–39Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ughwanogho E, Flynn JM (2010) Current navigation modalities in spine surgery. University Pa Orthop J 20:65–69Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pamir MN, Seifert V, Kiris TE (2011) Intraoperative imaging. Acta Neurochir Suppl 109:5–6Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sukovich W, Brink-Danan S, Hardenbrook M (2006) Miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw placement in posterior spinal fusion: early clinical experience with the spineassist. Int J Med Robot 2:114–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lieberman IH, Hardenbrook M, Wang JC, Guyer R, Khanna A (2007) Radiation exposure using miniature robotic guidance for spinal surgery. Spine J 7:1S–163SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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):860–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaobang Hu
    • 1
  • Donna D. Ohnmeiss
    • 2
  • Isador H. Lieberman
    • 1
  1. 1.Scoliosis and Spine Tumor CenterTexas Back Institute, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital PlanoPlanoUSA
  2. 2.Texas Back Institute Research FoundationPlanoUSA

Personalised recommendations