Robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Review

Abstract

Purpose

Several studies have revealed that robot-assisted technique might improve the pedicle screw insertion accuracy, but owing to the limited sample sizes in the individual study reported up to now, whether or not robot-assisted technique is superior to conventional freehand technique is indefinite. Thus, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials to assess which approach is better.

Methods

Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science, CNKI and WanFang were systematically searched to identify potentially eligible articles. Main endpoints containing the accuracy of pedicle screw implantation and proximal facet joint violation were evaluated as risk ratio (RR) and the associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), while radiation exposure and surgical duration were presented as mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

Six studies involving 158 patients (688 pedicle screws) in robot-assisted group and 148 patients (672 pedicle screws) in freehand group were identified matching our study. The Grade A accuracy rate in robot-assisted group was superior to freehand group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00, 1.06; P = 0.04), but the Grade A + B accuracy rate did not differ between the two groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99, 1.02; P = 0.29). With regard to proximal facet joint violation, the combined results suggested that robot-assisted group was associated with significantly fewer proximal facet joint violation than freehand group (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.55; P = 0.01). As was the radiation exposure, our findings suggested that robot-assisted technique could significantly reduce the intraoperative radiation time (MD − 12.38, 95% CI − 17.95, − 6.80; P < 0.0001) and radiation dosage (SMD − 0.64, 95% CI − 0.85, − 0.43; P < 0.00001). But the overall surgical duration was longer in robot-assisted group than conventional freehand group (MD 20.53, 95% CI 5.17, 35.90; P = 0.009).

Conclusions

The robot-assisted technique was associated with equivalent accuracy rate of pedicle screw implantation, fewer proximal facet joint violation, less intraoperative radiation exposure but longer surgical duration than freehand technique. Powerful evidence relies on more randomized controlled trials with high quality and larger sample size in the future.

Keywords

Robot assisted Pedicle screw Spine surgery Systematic review Meta-analysis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Gaines RW Jr (2000) The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J bone Jt Surg Am 82-A:1458–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Panjabi MM, Goel V, Oxland T, Takata K, Duranceau J, Krag M, Price M (1992) Human lumbar vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine 17:299–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Panjabi MM, Takata K, Goel V, Federico D, Oxland T, Duranceau J, Krag M (1991) Thoracic human vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine 16:888–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tan SH, Teo EC, Chua HC (2004) Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese Singaporeans. Eur Spine J 13:137–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0586-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Panjabi MM, Duranceau J, Goel V, Oxland T, Takata K (1991) Cervical human vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of the middle and lower regions. Spine 16:861–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mason A, Paulsen R, Babuska JM, Rajpal S, Burneikiene S, Nelson EL, Villavicencio AT (2014) The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. J Neurosur Spine 20:196–203.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.11.spine13413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nolte LP, Visarius H, Arm E, Langlotz F, Schwarzenbach O, Zamorano L (1995) Computer-aided fixation of spinal implants. J Image Guid Surg 1:88–93. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-712X(1995)1:2<88::AID-IGS3>3.0.CO;2-H CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tjardes T, Shafizadeh S, Rixen D, Paffrath T, Bouillon B, Steinhausen ES, Baethis H (2010) Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions. Eur Spine J 19:25–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1091-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 19:370–375.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1258-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 MRCAS 2:146–153.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000229055.00829.5b (discussion 641–650) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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. J Spinal Disord Tech 25:241–248.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318218a5ef CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu H, Chen W, Wang Z, Lin J, Meng B, Yang H (2016) Comparison of the accuracy between robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11:2273–2281.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1448-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marcus HJ, Cundy TP, Nandi D, Yang GZ, Darzi A (2014) Robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 23:291–297.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2879-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 15:11–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rampersaud YR, Simon DA, Foley KT (2001) Accuracy requirements for image-guided spinal pedicle screw placement. Spine 26:352–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cahill KS, Wang MY (2012) Evaluating the accuracy of robotic assistance in spine surgery. Neurosurgery 71:N20–N21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim HJ, Kang KT, Park SC, Kwon OH, Son J, Chang BS, Lee CK, 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 17:671–680.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.11.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, Kim HJ (2017) Minimally invasive robotic versus open fluoroscopicguided spinal instrumented fusions: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 42(6):353–358. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001778 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim HJ, Lee SH, Chang BS, Lee CK, Lim TO, Hoo LP, Yi JM, Yeom JS (2015) Monitoring the quality of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine by using a cumulative summation test. Spine 40(2):87–94. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000680 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim HJ, Jung WI, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kang KT, Yeom JS (2016) A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1779 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 37:E496–E501.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824b7767 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roser F, Tatagiba M, Maier G (2013) Spinal robotics: current applications and future perspectives. Neurosurgery 72(Suppl 1):12–18.  https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e318270d02c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tian W, Fan MX, Han XG, Zhao JW, Liu YJ (2016) Pedicle screw insertion in spine: a randomized comparison study of robot-assisted surgery and fluoroscopy-guided techniques. J Clin Orthop Res 1:4–10.  https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.2096-269X.2016.01.002 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Macke JJ, Woo R, Varich L (2016) Accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the pediatric population. J Robot Surg 10:145–150.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0587-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Overley SC, Cho SK, Mehta AI, Arnold PM (2017) Navigation and robotics in spinal surgery: where are we now? Neurosurgery 80:S86–S99.  https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyw077 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Joseph JR, Smith BW, Liu X, Park P (2017) Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 42:E2.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.2.focus16544 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lonjon N, Chan-Seng E, Costalat V, Bonnafoux B, Vassal M, Boetto J (2016) Robot-assisted spine surgery: feasibility study through a prospective case-matched analysis. Eur Spine J 25:947–955.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3758-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Theocharopoulos N, Papadokostakis G, Hadjipavlou A, Gourtsoyiannis N (2004) Patient exposure and associated radiation risks from fluoroscopically guided vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. Radiology 232:701–707.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2323031412 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mastrangelo G, Fedeli U, Fadda E, Giovanazzi A, Scoizzato L, Saia B (2005) Increased cancer risk among surgeons in an orthopaedic hospital. Occup Med (Oxf, Engl) 55:498–500.  https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqi048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alaid A, von Eckardstein K, Smoll NR, Solomiichuk V, Rohde V, Martinez R, Schatlo B (2017) Robot guidance for percutaneous minimally invasive placement of pedicle screws for pyogenic spondylodiscitis is associated with lower rates of wound breakdown compared to conventional fluoroscopy-guided instrumentation. Neurosurg Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-017-0877-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barzilay Y, Schroeder JE, Hiller N, Singer G, Hasharoni A, Safran O, Liebergall M, Itshayek E, Kaplan L (2014) Robot-assisted vertebral body augmentation: a radiation reduction tool. Spine 39:153–157.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000100 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Keric N, Doenitz C, Haj A, Rachwal-Czyzewicz I, Renovanz M, Wesp DMA, Boor S, Conrad J, Brawanski A, Giese A, Kantelhardt SR (2017) Evaluation of robot-guided minimally invasive implantation of 2067 pedicle screws. Neurosurg Focus 42:E11.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.2.focus16552 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kim HJ, Chun HJ, Kang KT, Moon SH, Kim HS, Park JO, Moon ES, Kim BR, Sohn JS, Ko YN, Lee HM (2012) The biomechanical effect of pedicle screws’ insertion angle and position on the superior adjacent segment in 1 segment lumbar fusion. Spine 37:1637–1644.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823f2115 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shah RR, Mohammed S, Saifuddin A, Taylor BA (2003) Radiologic evaluation of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation following transpedicular instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine 28:272–275.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000042361.93572.74 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Babu R, Park JG, Mehta AI, Shan T, Grossi PM, Brown CR, Richardson WJ, Isaacs RE, Bagley CA, Kuchibhatla M, Gottfried ON (2012) Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Neurosurgery 71:962–970.  https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31826a88c8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Levin JM, Alentado VJ, Healy AT, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2017) Superior segment facet joint violation during instrumented lumbar fusion is associated with higher reoperation rates and diminished improvement in quality of life. Clin Spine Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000566 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Spine SurgeryThe First Affiliate Hospital of Xinjiang Medical UniversityUrumqiChina
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations