Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement: a systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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).

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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):146–153

    Article  CAS  Google 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Benmessaoud C, Kharrazi H, MacDorman KF (2011) Facilitators and barriers to adopting robotic-assisted surgery: contextualizing the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. PLoS ONE 6(1):e16395. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016395

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15(1):11–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hicks JM, Singla A, Shen FH, Arlet V (2010) Complications of pedicle screw fixation in scoliosis surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(11):E465–E470. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d1021a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kosmopoulos V, Schizas C (2007) Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(3):E111–E120. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000254048.79024.8b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 Techn 25(5):241–248. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318218a5ef

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel PS, Aspinwall EM, Fennell AJ, Trotman SG, Shepherd DE, Hukins DW (2011) Pedicle screw surgery in the UK and Ireland: a questionnaire study. Open Biomed Eng J 5:90–97. doi:10.2174/1874120701105010090

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rampersaud YR, Pik JH, Salonen D, Farooq S (2005) Clinical accuracy of fluoroscopic computer-assisted pedicle screw fixation: a CT analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(7):E183–E190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rampersaud YR, Simon DA, Foley KT (2001) Accuracy requirements for image-guided spinal pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(4):352–359

    Article  CAS  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Roser F, Tatagiba M, Maier G (2013) Spinal robotics: current applications and future perspectives. Neurosurgery 72(Suppl 1):12–18. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e318270d02c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schizas C, Michel J, Kosmopoulos V, Theumann N (2007) Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw insertion in percutaneous posterior transpedicular stabilization. Eur Spine J 16(5):613–617. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0221-x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schizas C, Thein E, Kwiatkowski B, Kulik G (2012) Pedicle screw insertion: robotic assistance versus conventional C-arm fluoroscopy. Acta Orthop Belg 78(2):240–245

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shamir R, Freiman M, Joskowicz L, Shoham M, Zehavi E, Shoshan Y (2005) Robot-assisted image-guided targeting for minimally invasive neurosurgery: planning, registration, and in vitro experiment. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 8(Pt 2):131–138

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73(9):712–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sukovich W, Brink-Danan S, Hardenbrook M (2006) Miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw placement in posterior spinal fusion: early clinical experience with the SpineAssist. Int J Med Robot 2(2):114–122. doi:10.1002/rcs.86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tian NF, Xu HZ (2009) Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop 33(4):895–903. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0792-3

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google 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-139

    Google 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wiesner L, Kothe R, Ruther W (1999) Anatomic evaluation of two different techniques for the percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(15):1599–1603

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

H. J. Marcus is supported by the Wellcome Trust.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK

    Hani J. Marcus & Dipankar Nandi

  2. The Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Paterson Building (level 3), St Mary’s Campus, Imperial College London, London, W2 1NY, UK

    Hani J. Marcus, Thomas P. Cundy, Guang-Zhong Yang & Ara Darzi

Authors
  1. Hani J. Marcus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas P. Cundy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dipankar Nandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guang-Zhong Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ara Darzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hani J. Marcus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marcus, H.J., Cundy, T.P., Nandi, D. et al. Robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 23, 291–297 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2879-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2879-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation