Computed tomography assessment of robotic versus fluoroscopic implant accuracy in sacroiliac joint fusion.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-05-31 Print Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.3171/2024.3.SPINE231109
Edward S Harake, John H Lee, Mark M Zaki, Rushikesh S Joshi, Joseph R Linzey, Rakesh D Patel, Paul Park, Yamaan S Saadeh
{"title":"Computed tomography assessment of robotic versus fluoroscopic implant accuracy in sacroiliac joint fusion.","authors":"Edward S Harake, John H Lee, Mark M Zaki, Rushikesh S Joshi, Joseph R Linzey, Rakesh D Patel, Paul Park, Yamaan S Saadeh","doi":"10.3171/2024.3.SPINE231109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Computed tomography is considered the gold-standard imaging tool to evaluate spinal implant accuracy. However, there are no studies that evaluate the accuracy of robotic sacroiliac joint (SIJ) implant placement using CT to date. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement on CT between robotic and fluoroscopic navigation for SIJ fusion and the subsequent complications and clinical outcomes of suboptimally placed screws.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of SIJ fusions utilizing either robotic or fluoroscopic guidance at a single institution was conducted from 2014 to 2023. Implant placement accuracy was evaluated on intra- or postoperative CT. Primary endpoints were SIJ screw placement accuracy and complications. Secondary endpoints were pain status at the first and second follow-ups and rates of 2-year revision surgery. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-nine patients who underwent 78 SIJ fusions were included, of which 63 were robotic and 15 were fluoroscopic. The mean age of the cohort at the time of surgery was 55.9 ± 14.2 years, and 35 patients (50.7%) were female. There were 135 robotically placed and 34 fluoroscopically placed implants. A significant difference was found in implant placement accuracy between robotic and fluoroscopic fusion (97.8% vs 76.5%, p < 0.001). When comparing optimal versus suboptimal implant placement, no difference was found in the presence of 30-day complications (p = 0.98). No intraoperative complications were present in this cohort. No difference was found in subjective pain status at the first (p = 0.69) and second (p = 0.45) follow-ups between optimal and suboptimal implant placement. No patients underwent 2-year revision surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Use of robotic navigation was significantly more accurate than the use of fluoroscopic navigation for SIJ implant placement. Complications overall were low and not different between optimally and suboptimally placed implants. Suboptimally placed implants did not differ in degree of subjective pain improvement or rates of revision surgery postoperatively.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.3.SPINE231109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Computed tomography is considered the gold-standard imaging tool to evaluate spinal implant accuracy. However, there are no studies that evaluate the accuracy of robotic sacroiliac joint (SIJ) implant placement using CT to date. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement on CT between robotic and fluoroscopic navigation for SIJ fusion and the subsequent complications and clinical outcomes of suboptimally placed screws.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of SIJ fusions utilizing either robotic or fluoroscopic guidance at a single institution was conducted from 2014 to 2023. Implant placement accuracy was evaluated on intra- or postoperative CT. Primary endpoints were SIJ screw placement accuracy and complications. Secondary endpoints were pain status at the first and second follow-ups and rates of 2-year revision surgery. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square tests.

Results: Sixty-nine patients who underwent 78 SIJ fusions were included, of which 63 were robotic and 15 were fluoroscopic. The mean age of the cohort at the time of surgery was 55.9 ± 14.2 years, and 35 patients (50.7%) were female. There were 135 robotically placed and 34 fluoroscopically placed implants. A significant difference was found in implant placement accuracy between robotic and fluoroscopic fusion (97.8% vs 76.5%, p < 0.001). When comparing optimal versus suboptimal implant placement, no difference was found in the presence of 30-day complications (p = 0.98). No intraoperative complications were present in this cohort. No difference was found in subjective pain status at the first (p = 0.69) and second (p = 0.45) follow-ups between optimal and suboptimal implant placement. No patients underwent 2-year revision surgery.

Conclusions: Use of robotic navigation was significantly more accurate than the use of fluoroscopic navigation for SIJ implant placement. Complications overall were low and not different between optimally and suboptimally placed implants. Suboptimally placed implants did not differ in degree of subjective pain improvement or rates of revision surgery postoperatively.

计算机断层扫描评估骶髂关节融合术中机器人与透视植入物的准确性。
目的:计算机断层扫描被认为是评估脊柱植入物准确性的黄金标准成像工具。然而,迄今为止还没有研究评估机器人骶髂关节(SIJ)植入物通过 CT 放置的准确性。本研究的目的是比较机器人和透视导航在 CT 上植入 SIJ 融合器的准确性,以及随后出现的并发症和植入不理想螺钉的临床结果:方法: 从2014年到2023年,对一家医疗机构使用机器人或透视引导进行的SIJ融合术进行了回顾性分析。通过术中或术后 CT 评估植入物放置的准确性。主要终点是SIJ螺钉植入的准确性和并发症。次要终点是首次和第二次随访时的疼痛状况以及两年后的翻修手术率。统计分析采用卡方检验:69名患者接受了78例SIJ融合术,其中63例为机器人手术,15例为透视手术。手术时的平均年龄为(55.9±14.2)岁,35 名患者(50.7%)为女性。机器人植入 135 个种植体,透视植入 34 个种植体。机器人植入和透视融合在植入准确性上存在明显差异(97.8% vs 76.5%,p < 0.001)。在比较最佳与次佳种植体植入情况时,30 天并发症发生率没有发现差异(p = 0.98)。该组患者均未出现术中并发症。在第一次随访(p = 0.69)和第二次随访(p = 0.45)时,最佳和次佳种植体植入术的主观疼痛状况没有差异。没有患者接受为期两年的翻修手术:结论:在SIJ植入手术中,机器人导航的准确性明显高于透视导航。总的来说,并发症较少,最佳植入和次佳植入之间没有差异。次优植入物在主观疼痛改善程度或术后翻修手术率方面没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信