Robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement: a systematic review
- 893 Downloads
At present, most spinal surgeons undertake pedicle screw implantation using either anatomical landmarks or C-arm fluoroscopy. Reported rates of screw malposition using these techniques vary considerably, though the evidence generally favors the use of image-guidance systems. A miniature spine-mounted robot has recently been developed to further improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. In this systematic review, we critically appraise the perceived benefits of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement compared to conventional fluoroscopy-guided technique.
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched between January 2006 and January 2013 to identify relevant publications that (1) featured placement of pedicle screws, (2) compared robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided surgery, (3) assessed outcome in terms of pedicle screw position, and (4) present sufficient data in each arm to enable meaningful comparison (>10 pedicle screws in each study group).
A total of 246 articles were retrieved, of which 5 articles met inclusion criteria, collectively reporting placement of 1,308 pedicle screws (729 robot-assisted, 579 fluoroscopy-guided). The findings of these studies are mixed, with limited higher level of evidence data favoring fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and remaining comparative studies supporting robot-assisted pedicle screw placement.
There is insufficient evidence to unequivocally recommend one surgical technique over the other. Given the high cost of robotic systems, and the high risk of spinal surgery, further high quality studies are required to address unresolved clinical equipoise in this field.
KeywordsRobotics Robot assisted SpineAssist Fluoroscopy guided Pedicle screw Bone screw Spine Spinal surgery Neurosurgery Systematic review
H. J. Marcus is supported by the Wellcome Trust.
Conflict of interest
- 1.Barzilay Y, Liebergall M, Fridlander A, Knoller N (2006) Miniature robotic guidance for spine surgery—introduction of a novel system and analysis of challenges encountered during the clinical development phase at two spine centres. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 2(2):146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Barzilay Y, Liebergall M, Fridlander A, Knoller N (2006) Miniature robotic guidance for spine surgery—introduction of a novel system and analysis of challenges encountered during the clinical development phase at two spine centres. Int J Med Robot 2(2):146–153. doi: 10.1002/rcs.90 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.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 (Phila Pa 1976) 35(24):2109–2115. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d323ab CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Gelalis ID, Paschos NK, Pakos EE, Politis AN, Arnaoutoglou CM, Karageorgos AC, Ploumis A, Xenakis TA (2012) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 21(2):247–255. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-2011-3 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.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. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1729-2 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.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(3):641–650. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000229055.00829.5B (discussion 641–650)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 34(4):392–398. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318191ed32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Ringel F, Stuer C, Reinke A, Preuss A, Behr M, Auer F, Stoffel M, Meyer B (2012) Accuracy of robot-assisted placement of lumbar and sacral pedicle screws: a prospective randomized comparison to conventional freehand screw implantation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(8):E496–E501. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824b7767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Shoham M, Lieberman IH, Benzel EC, Togawa D, Zehavi E, Zilberstein B, Roffman M, Bruskin A, Fridlander A, Joskowicz L, Brink-Danan S, Knoller N (2007) Robotic assisted spinal surgery—from concept to clinical practice. Comput Aided Surg 12(2):105–115. doi: 10.3109/10929080701243981 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.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(2 Suppl 1):ONS-129–ONS-139Google Scholar
- 27.Verma R, Krishan S, Haendlmayer K, Mohsen A (2010) Functional outcome of computer-assisted spinal pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies including 5,992 pedicle screws. Eur Spine J 19(3):370–375. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1258-4 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar