Abstract
Robotic navigation has been shown to increase precision, accuracy, and safety during spinal reconstructive procedures. There is a paucity of literature describing the best techniques for robotic-assisted spine surgery for complex, multilevel cases or in cases of significant deformity correction. We present a case series of 100 consecutive multilevel posterior spinal fusion procedures performed for multilevel spinal disease and/or deformity correction. 100 consecutive posterior spinal fusions were performed for multilevel disease and/or deformity correction utilizing robotic-assisted placement of pedicle screws. The primary outcome was surgery-related failure, which was defined as hardware breakage or reoperation with removal of hardware. A total of 100 consecutive patients met inclusion criteria. Among cases included, 31 were revision surgeries with existing hardware in place. The mean number of levels fused was 5.6, the mean operative time was 303 min, and the mean estimated blood loss was 469 mL. 28 cases included robotic-assisted placement of S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws. In total, 1043 pedicle screws and 53 S2AI screws were placed with robotic-assistance. The failure rate using survivorship analysis was 18/1043 (1.7%) and the failure rate of S2AI screws using survivorship analysis was 3/53 (5.7%). Four patients developed postoperative wound infections requiring irrigation and debridement procedures. None of the 1043 pedicle screws nor the 53 S2AI screws required reoperation due to malpositioning or suboptimal placement. This case series of 100 multilevel posterior spinal fusion procedures demonstrates promising results with low failure rates. With 1043 pedicle screws and 53 S2AI screws, we report low failure rates of 1.7% and 5.7%, respectively with zero cases of screw malpositioning. Robotic screw placement allows for accurate screw placement with no increased rate of postoperative infection compared to historical controls. Level of evidence: IV, Retrospective review.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
Data were obtained via retrospective chart review and are available upon reasonable request.
References
Abul-Kasim K, Ohlin A (2011) The rate of screw misplacement in segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Acta Orthop 82:50–55
Hicks JM, Singla A, Shen FH, Arlet V (2010) Complications of pedicle screw fixation in scoliosis surgery. Spine 35:E465–E470. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181d1021a
Gaines RW Jr (2000) The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:1458–1476
Amato V, Giannachi L, Irace C, Corona C (2010) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the lumbosacral spine using conventional technique: computed tomography postoperative assessment in 102 consecutive patients. J Neurosurg Spine 12:306–313. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.9.spine09261
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
Jiang B et al (2018) Pedicle screw accuracy assessment in ExcelsiusGPS® robotic spine surgery: evaluation of deviation from pre-planned trajectory. Chin Neurosurg J. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41016-018-0131-x
Khan A, Meyers JE, Siasios I, Pollina J (2019) Next-generation robotic spine surgery: first report on feasibility, safety, and learning curve. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 17:61–69
Jain D et al (2019) Initial single-institution experience with a novel robotic-navigation system for thoracolumbar pedicle screw and pelvic screw placement with 643 screws. Int J Spine Surg 13:459–463
Godzik J et al (2019) A quantitative assessment of the accuracy and reliability of robotically guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement: technique and application accuracy. Oper Neurosurg 17:389–395. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opy413
Huntsman KT, Ahrendtsen LA, Riggleman JR, Ledonio CG (2020) Robotic-assisted navigated minimally invasive pedicle screw placement in the first 100 cases at a single institution. J Robot Surg 14:199–203
Wallace DJ et al (2020) Navigated robotic assistance improves pedicle screw accuracy in minimally invasive surgery of the lumbosacral spine: 600 pedicle screws in a single institution. Int J Med Robot 16:e2054
Lieber AM, Kirchner GJ, Kerbel YE, Khalsa AS (2019) Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement fails to reduce overall postoperative complications in fusion surgery. Spine J 19:212–217
Yang DS, Li NY, Kleinhenz DT, Patel S, Daniels AH (2020) Risk of postoperative complications and revision surgery following robot-assisted posterior lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 45:E1692–E1698. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000003701
Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf6/p060018b.pdf.
Cunningham BW, Brooks DM, McAfee PC (2021) Accuracy of robotic-assisted spinal surgery—comparison to TJR robotics, da Vinci robotics, and optoelectronic laboratory robotics. Int J Spine Surg 15(2(Suppl 2)):S38–S55. https://doi.org/10.14444/8139
Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 15:11–14
Amiot LP, Lang K, Putzier M, Zippel H, Labelle H (2000) Comparative results between conventional and computer-assisted pedicle screw installation in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. Spine 25:606–614
Laine T, Lund T, Ylikoski M, Lohikoski J, Schlenzka D (2000) Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with and without computer assistance: a randomised controlled clinical study in 100 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J 9:235–240
Kosmopoulos V, Schizas C (2007) Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine 32:E111–E120
Funding
No funding was received for the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
BMC assisted with project design, data collection and analysis, and manuscript preparation. DCJ, GTD, MTS, and ARB assisted with data collection, figure and table preparation, and manuscript preparation. PLA, BWM, LGC, and PCMA were senior authors who performed the procedures and contributed to project design and manuscript preparation.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Paul C. McAfee discloses that he is on the Globus Medical Board of Directors and receives royalties from Globus Medical. Paul L. Asdourian discloses that he received royalties from Globus Medical. All other authors have no relevant financial or personal interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
This study was deemed exempt by our Institutional Review Board.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
McCormick, B., Asdourian, P.L., Johnson, D.C. et al. 100 Complex posterior spinal fusion cases performed with robotic instrumentation. J Robotic Surg 17, 2749–2756 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01707-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01707-7