Robotic Spine Surgery: Systematic Review of Common Error Types and Best Practices.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Operative Neurosurgery Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1227/ons.0000000000001293
Diwas Gautam, Sheela Vivekanandan, Marcus D Mazur
{"title":"Robotic Spine Surgery: Systematic Review of Common Error Types and Best Practices.","authors":"Diwas Gautam, Sheela Vivekanandan, Marcus D Mazur","doi":"10.1227/ons.0000000000001293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Robotic systems have emerged as a significant advancement in the field of spine surgery. They offer improved accuracy in pedicle screw placement and reduce intraoperative complications, hospital length of stay, blood loss, and radiation exposure. As the use of robotics in spine surgery continues to grow, it becomes imperative to understand common errors and challenges associated with this new and promising technology. Although the reported accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is very high, the current literature does not capture near misses or incidental procedural errors that might have been managed during surgery or did not alter treatment of patients. We evaluated errors that occur during robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion and identify best practices to minimize their occurrence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic review, we characterized 3 types of errors encountered during robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion-registration errors, skiving, and interference errors-that have been reported in the literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded 13 relevant studies reporting robot-assisted screw errors. Nine studies reported registration errors, with 60% of failed screws in those studies caused by registration issues. Seven studies highlighted skiving errors; 26.8% of the failed screws in those studies were caused by skiving. Finally, interference errors were reported in 4 studies, making up 19.5% of failed screws.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>On the basis of these findings, we suggest best practices-including close attention to preoperative planning, patient positioning, image registration, and equipment selection-to minimize the occurrence of these errors. Awareness of how errors occur may increase the safety of this technology.</p>","PeriodicalId":54254,"journal":{"name":"Operative Neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"295-302"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Operative Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1227/ons.0000000000001293","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Robotic systems have emerged as a significant advancement in the field of spine surgery. They offer improved accuracy in pedicle screw placement and reduce intraoperative complications, hospital length of stay, blood loss, and radiation exposure. As the use of robotics in spine surgery continues to grow, it becomes imperative to understand common errors and challenges associated with this new and promising technology. Although the reported accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is very high, the current literature does not capture near misses or incidental procedural errors that might have been managed during surgery or did not alter treatment of patients. We evaluated errors that occur during robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion and identify best practices to minimize their occurrence.

Methods: In this systematic review, we characterized 3 types of errors encountered during robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion-registration errors, skiving, and interference errors-that have been reported in the literature.

Results: Our search yielded 13 relevant studies reporting robot-assisted screw errors. Nine studies reported registration errors, with 60% of failed screws in those studies caused by registration issues. Seven studies highlighted skiving errors; 26.8% of the failed screws in those studies were caused by skiving. Finally, interference errors were reported in 4 studies, making up 19.5% of failed screws.

Conclusion: On the basis of these findings, we suggest best practices-including close attention to preoperative planning, patient positioning, image registration, and equipment selection-to minimize the occurrence of these errors. Awareness of how errors occur may increase the safety of this technology.

机器人脊柱手术:常见错误类型和最佳实践的系统回顾。
背景和目的:机器人系统是脊柱外科领域的一大进步。它们提高了椎弓根螺钉置入的准确性,减少了术中并发症、住院时间、失血量和辐射暴露。随着机器人技术在脊柱手术中的应用不断扩大,了解与这一前景广阔的新技术相关的常见错误和挑战已成为当务之急。尽管据报道机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉置入术的准确性非常高,但目前的文献并未捕捉到在手术过程中可能已经处理或不会改变患者治疗的近乎失误或偶然的程序错误。我们评估了机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉置入过程中出现的错误,并确定了减少错误发生的最佳方法:在这篇系统性综述中,我们对文献中报道的机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉插入过程中遇到的 3 种错误进行了描述--注册错误、滑动错误和干扰错误:结果:我们的搜索结果显示有 13 项相关研究报告了机器人辅助螺钉错误。9项研究报告了注册错误,其中60%的失败螺钉是由注册问题引起的。7 项研究强调了滑动错误;在这些研究中,26.8% 的失败螺钉是由滑动造成的。最后,4 项研究报告了干扰错误,占失败螺钉的 19.5%:根据这些发现,我们提出了最佳实践建议,包括密切关注术前计划、患者定位、图像登记和设备选择,以最大限度地减少这些错误的发生。认识到错误是如何发生的可以提高这项技术的安全性。
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
Operative Neurosurgery
Operative Neurosurgery Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
13.00%
发文量
530
期刊介绍: Operative Neurosurgery is a bi-monthly, unique publication focusing exclusively on surgical technique and devices, providing practical, skill-enhancing guidance to its readers. Complementing the clinical and research studies published in Neurosurgery, Operative Neurosurgery brings the reader technical material that highlights operative procedures, anatomy, instrumentation, devices, and technology. Operative Neurosurgery is the practical resource for cutting-edge material that brings the surgeon the most up to date literature on operative practice and technique
×
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