Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 158, Issue 6, pp 1125–1128 | Cite as

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with the ROSATM Spine robot and intraoperative flat-panel CT guidance

  • Louis CheninEmail author
  • Johann Peltier
  • Michel Lefranc
How I Do it - Neurosurgical Techniques

Abstract

Background

Circumferential arthrodesis is commonly used to treat degenerative lumbar diseases. Minimally invasive techniques may enable faster recovery and reduce the incidence of postoperative infections.

Methods

We report on the surgical technique of a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure performed with the assistance of a new robotic device (ROSATM Spine) and intraoperative flat-panel CT guidance.

Conclusions

The combined use of this new robotic device and intraoperative CT enables accurate and safe arthrodesis in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc diseases.

Keywords

Transforaminal Fusion Minimally invasive Robot Intraoperative CT 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Lefranc has provided consultancy services to Medtech®. The other authors (Chenin, Peltier) report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

Supplementary material

ESM 1

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with the ROSATM Spine robot and intraoperative flat-panel CT guidance

The patient is placed in the prone position. The O-arm flat-panel CT device and the ROSA SPINE robot are placed. The specific robot’s fiducial marker enables the robot to monitor its own movements. A percutaneous reference pin is placed in the right iliac wing. This fiducial allowed the robot to track every patient’s movement. Trajectories are planned in the same way as in the brain system, with specification of the screw’s entry point, direction, and final position. Size of each screw is also determined. Then, the robot is positioning exactly on the planned trajectory, with real time navigation guidance. A guide tube needle is placed through the skin and then through the pedicle into the posterior part of the vertebral body. After a guide wire has been placed through the guide-tube needle, the latter is removed. A hole is drilled through the pedicle using real-time, robotized navigation guidance. Guide wire, guide-tube needle and tap are monitored by the robot. all pedicles are threaded and screws are inserted. The two left percutaneous incisions are combined in order to position the mini invasive retractor. In this case of L4-L5 TLIF, exposure of the left L4-L5 articular facet enables initiation of L4-L5 foraminotomy. The surgeon is free to use a navigated pointer to recognize anatomic features more easily. Adequate discectomy then enables placement of the TLIF cage. Arthrodesis is completed by introducing and clamping the rods. The Sextant® percutaneous ancillary system is used for this procedure. Another 3D acquisition is then performed with the O-arm®, in order to check the mounting’s final position. (MP4 190601 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) Die posteriore, lumbale, interkorporelle Fusion in unilateraler transforaminaler Technik. Oper Orthop Traumatol 10(2):90–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 26(5):567–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, Gerszten PC, Moossy JJ, Kanter AS, Spiro RM, Okonkwo DO (2012) Perioperative surgical complications of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center experience. J Neurosurg Spine 16(1):44–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wong AP, Smith ZA, Nixon AT, Lawton CD, Dahdaleh NS, Wong RH, Auffinger B, Lam S, Song JK, Liu JC, Koski TR, Fessler RG (2015) Intraoperative and perioperative complications in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 513 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 1–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wiltse LL, Spencer CW (1988) New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 13(6):696–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 21(2):247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 14(6):551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee JC, Jang H-D, Shin B-J (2012) Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine 37(18):1548–1557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    N’da HA, Chenin L, Capel C, Havet E, Le Gars D, Peltier J (2015) Microsurgical anatomy of the Adamkiewicz artery-anterior spinal artery junction. Surg Radiol Anat SRA. doi: 10.1007/s00276-015-1596-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glossop N, Hu R (1997) Assessment of vertebral body motion during spine surgery. Spine 22(8):903–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Neurosurgery UnitAmiens University Medical CenterAmiens cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations