Impact of robot-assisted spine surgery on health care quality and neurosurgical economics: A systemic review
- 832 Downloads
Whenever any new technology is introduced into the healthcare system, it should satisfy all three pillars of the iron triangle of health care, which are quality, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility. There has been quite advancement in the field of spine surgery in the last two decades with introduction of new technological modalities such as CAN and surgical robotic devices. MAZOR SpineAssist/Renaissance was the first robotic system to be approved for the use in spine surgeries in the USA in 2004. In this review, the authors sought to determine if the current literature supports this technology to be cost-effective, accessible, and improve the quality of care for individuals and populations by increasing the likelihood of desired health outcomes. Robotic-assisted surgery seems to provide perfection in surgical ergonomics and surgical dexterity, consequently improving patient outcomes. A lot of data is present on the accuracy, effectiveness, and safety of the robotic-guided technology which reflects remarkable improvements in quality of care, making its utility convincingly undisputable. The technology has been claimed to be cost-effective but there seems to be lack of data in the literature on this topic to validate this claim. Apart from just the outcome parameters, there is an immense need of studies on real-time cost-efficacy, patient perspective, surgeon and resident learning curve, and their experience with this new technology. Furthermore, new studies looking into increased utilities of this technology, such as brain and spine tumor resection, deep brain stimulation procedures, and osteotomies in deformity surgery, might authenticate the cost of the equipment.
KeywordsRobotic spine surgery Minimally invasive spine surgery Mazor robotics Neurosurgical economics
The authors have not received any funding for this work from any organization.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures were done in accordance with the ethical standards. The radiological images used in this review were reviewed and approved by the local institutional review board (IRB) and have all been de-identified to maintain patient confidentiality.
- 4.Cortez M (2016) Medtronic to Buy Mazor Shares, Promote Surgical System. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-18/medtronic-to-buy-mazor-robotics-shares-promote-surgical-system. Accessed 2/20/2018
- 6.Devito D, Gaskill T, Erickson M (2010) Robotic-based guidance for pedicle screw instrumentation of the scoliotic spine. In: spine arthroplasty society (SAS) 10th annual global symposium on motion preservation. TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- 12.Fiani B, Quadri SA, Ramakrishnan V, Berman B, Khan Y, Siddiqi J (2017) Retrospective review on accuracy: a pilot study of robotically guided thoracolumbar/sacral pedicle screws versus fluoroscopy-guided and computerized tomography stealth-guided screws. Cureus:9Google Scholar
- 14.Garrity M (2018) da Vinci Surgical System vs. Renaissance Robotic Surgical System—is Mazor Robotics the next Intuitive Surgical? Becker's Spine Review. https://www.beckersspine.com/orthopedic-a-spine-device-a-implant-news/item/39853-da-vinci-surgical-system-vs-renaissance-robotic-surgical-system-is-mazor-robotics-the-next-intuitive-surgical.html. Accessed 2/20/2018
- 21.Hu X, Scharschmidt TJ, Ohnmeiss DD, Lieberman IH (2015) Robotic assisted surgeries for the treatment of spine tumors. Int J Spine Surg 9. https://doi.org/10.14444/2001
- 26.Jeong IG, Khandwala YS, Kim JH, Han DH, Li S, Wang Y, Chang SL, Chung BI (2017) Association of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with perioperative outcomes and health care costs, 2003 to 2015. JAMA 318:1561–1568. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.14586 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Keric N, Eum DJ, Afghanyar F, Rachwal-Czyzewicz I, Renovanz M, Conrad J, Wesp DM, Kantelhardt SR, Giese A (2017) Evaluation of surgical strategy of conventional vs. percutaneous robot-assisted spinal trans-pedicular instrumentation in spondylodiscitis. J Robot Surg 11:17–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Kim H-J, Kang K-T, Park S-C, Kwon O-H, Son J, Chang B-S, Lee C-K, Yeom JS, Lenke LG (2017) Biomechanical advantages of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar interbody fusion compared with freehand technique in a prospective randomized controlled trial—perspective for patient-specific finite element analysis. Spine J 17:671–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Kim HJ, Jung WI, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kang KT, Yeom JS (2017) A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 13Google Scholar
- 35.Lai F, Entin E (2005) Robotic surgery and the operating room team. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 2005. Vol 11. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles, pp 1070–1073Google Scholar
- 37.Laudato PA, Pierzchala K, Schizas C (2017) Pedicle screw insertion accuracy using O-arm, robotic guidance or freehand technique: a comparative study. SpineGoogle Scholar
- 39.Lieberman IH, Hardenbrook MA, Wang JC, Guyer RD (2012) Assessment of pedicle screw placement accuracy, procedure time, and radiation exposure using a miniature robotic guidance system. Clin Spine Surg 25:241–248Google Scholar
- 43.Mehmet Resid O, SıMSEK M, NADER S (2014) Robotic spine surgery: a preliminary report. Turk Neurosurg 24:512–518Google Scholar
- 45.Mortazavi MM, Quadri SA, Suriya SS, Fard SA, Hadidchi S, Adl FH, Armstrong I, Goldman R, Tubbs RS (2018) Rare concurrent retroclival and pan-spinal subdural empyema: review of literature with an uncommon illustrative case. World Neurosurg 110:326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.11.082 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 48.OpenPR (2017) Global Surgical Robots for the Spine Industry Trend, Growth, Shares, Strategy and Forecasts 2016 to 2022. https://www.openpr.com/news/442943/Global-Surgical-Robots-for-the-Spine-Industry-Trend-Growth-Shares-Strategy-and-Forecasts-2016-to-2022.html. Accessed 11/26 2017
- 54.Randell R, Alvarado N, Honey S, Greenhalgh J, Gardner P, Gill A, Jayne D, Kotze A, Pearman A, Dowding D (2015) Impact of robotic surgery on decision making: perspectives of surgical teams. AMIA Ann Symp Proc 2015:1057–1066Google Scholar
- 57.Robotics M (2015) Mazor Robotics Renaissance® Guidance System Helping Patients with OCD. https://www.mazorrobotics.com/index.php/resources-for/media/press-releases/147-mazor-robotics-renaissance-guidance-system-helping-patients-with-ocd. Accessed 12/16 2017
- 58.Robotics M (2016) Mazor-X-Overview-and-Strategy. https://www.mazorrobotics.com/Reports/investment/Mazor-X-Overview-and-Strategy.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2017
- 59.Robotics M (2017) FAQ for patients https://www.mazorrobotics.com/index.php/resources-for/for-patients/faq-for-patients. Accessed 18 Nov 2017
- 60.Robotics M (2017) Mazor-X. https://www.mazorrobotics.com/index.php/mazor-product-portfolio/mazor-x. Accessed 18 Nov 2017
- 71.Solomiichuk V, Fleischhammer J, Molliqaj G, Warda J, Alaid A, von Eckardstein K, Schaller K, Tessitore E, Rohde V, Schatlo B (2017) Robotic versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for metastatic spinal disease: a matched-cohort comparison. Neurosurg Focus 42:E13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 75.Times F (2017) First Prospective Study of Robotic-Guided Spine Surgery Reveals Five-Fold Reduction in Surgical Complications with Mazor Core™ Technology. https://markets.ft.com/data/announce/detail?dockey=600-201710250430BIZWIRE_USPRX____BW5354-1. Accessed 11/26 2017
- 78.Young R (2012) The March of Robotics into the Spine Surgery. RRY Publications. https://ryortho.com/2012/09/the-march-of-robots-into-the-spine-surgery-suite/. Accessed 2/20/2018 2018