[Comparative study of computer-assisted and robot-assisted atlantoaxial pedicle screw implantation for reversible atlantoaxial dislocation].

Q3 Medicine
Peng Zou, Xiaojun Yu, Xiaodong Wang, Dingjun Hao, Yuanting Zhao
{"title":"[Comparative study of computer-assisted and robot-assisted atlantoaxial pedicle screw implantation for reversible atlantoaxial dislocation].","authors":"Peng Zou, Xiaojun Yu, Xiaodong Wang, Dingjun Hao, Yuanting Zhao","doi":"10.7507/1002-1892.202406018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the effectiveness of computer-assisted and robot-assisted atlantoaxial pedicle screw implantation for the treatment of reversible atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The clinical data of 42 patients with reversible AAD admitted between January 2020 and June 2023 and met the selection criteria were retrospectively analyzed, of whom 23 patients were treated with computer-assisted surgery (computer group) and 19 patients were treated with Mazor X spinal robot-assisted surgery (robot group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, T value of bone mineral density, body mass index, etiology, and preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Neck Dysfunction Index (NDI) between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05). The operation time, screw implantation time, intraoperative blood loss, hand and wrist radiation exposure, and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Gertzbein classification was used to evaluate the accuracy of screw implantation. JOA score and NDI were used to evaluate the function before operation, at 3 days after operation, and at last follow-up. At last follow-up, the status of screws and bone fusion were observed by neck three-dimensional CT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The operation time and hand and wrist radiation exposure of the computer group were significantly longer than those of the robot group ( <i>P</i><0.05), and there was no significant difference in the screw implantation time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05). All patients were followed up 11-24 months, with an average of 19.6 months. There was no significant difference in the follow-up time between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05). There was no significant difference in the accuracy of screw implantation between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05). Except for 1 case of incision infection in the computer group, which improved after antibiotic treatment, there was no complication such as nerve and vertebral artery injury, screw loosening, or breakage in the two groups. The JOA score and NDI significantly improved in both groups at 3 days after operation and at last follow-up ( <i>P</i><0.05) compared to those before operation, but there was no significant difference between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05). At last follow-up, 21 patients (91.3%) in the computer group and 18 patients (94.7%) in the robot group achieved satisfactory atlantoaxial fusion, and there was no significant difference in the fusion rate between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Computer-assisted or robot-assisted atlantoaxial pedicle screw implantation is safe and effective, and robotic navigation shortens operation time and reduces radiation exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":23979,"journal":{"name":"中国修复重建外科杂志","volume":"38 8","pages":"911-916"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11335590/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中国修复重建外科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.202406018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of computer-assisted and robot-assisted atlantoaxial pedicle screw implantation for the treatment of reversible atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD).

Methods: The clinical data of 42 patients with reversible AAD admitted between January 2020 and June 2023 and met the selection criteria were retrospectively analyzed, of whom 23 patients were treated with computer-assisted surgery (computer group) and 19 patients were treated with Mazor X spinal robot-assisted surgery (robot group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, T value of bone mineral density, body mass index, etiology, and preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Neck Dysfunction Index (NDI) between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, screw implantation time, intraoperative blood loss, hand and wrist radiation exposure, and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Gertzbein classification was used to evaluate the accuracy of screw implantation. JOA score and NDI were used to evaluate the function before operation, at 3 days after operation, and at last follow-up. At last follow-up, the status of screws and bone fusion were observed by neck three-dimensional CT.

Results: The operation time and hand and wrist radiation exposure of the computer group were significantly longer than those of the robot group ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the screw implantation time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 11-24 months, with an average of 19.6 months. There was no significant difference in the follow-up time between the two groups ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the accuracy of screw implantation between the two groups ( P>0.05). Except for 1 case of incision infection in the computer group, which improved after antibiotic treatment, there was no complication such as nerve and vertebral artery injury, screw loosening, or breakage in the two groups. The JOA score and NDI significantly improved in both groups at 3 days after operation and at last follow-up ( P<0.05) compared to those before operation, but there was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, 21 patients (91.3%) in the computer group and 18 patients (94.7%) in the robot group achieved satisfactory atlantoaxial fusion, and there was no significant difference in the fusion rate between the two groups ( P>0.05).

Conclusion: Computer-assisted or robot-assisted atlantoaxial pedicle screw implantation is safe and effective, and robotic navigation shortens operation time and reduces radiation exposure.

[计算机辅助和机器人辅助寰枢椎椎弓根螺钉植入治疗可逆性寰枢椎脱位的比较研究]。
目的探讨计算机辅助寰枢椎椎弓根螺钉植入术和机器人辅助寰枢椎椎弓根螺钉植入术治疗可逆性寰枢椎脱位(AAD)的效果:回顾性分析2020年1月至2023年6月期间收治的42例符合入选标准的可逆性寰枢脱位患者的临床资料,其中23例患者采用计算机辅助手术治疗(计算机组),19例患者采用Mazor X脊柱机器人辅助手术治疗(机器人组)。两组患者在性别、年龄、骨质密度 T 值、体重指数、病因、术前日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)等方面均无明显差异(P>0.05)。记录并比较了两组患者的手术时间、螺钉植入时间、术中失血量、手部和腕部辐射暴露以及并发症。Gertzbein 分级用于评估螺钉植入的准确性。JOA 评分和 NDI 用于评估术前、术后 3 天和最后一次随访时的功能。最后一次随访时,通过颈部三维 CT 观察螺钉和骨融合情况:结果:电脑组的手术时间、手部和腕部辐射量明显长于机器人组(PP>0.05)。所有患者均接受了 11-24 个月的随访,平均随访时间为 19.6 个月。两组随访时间无明显差异(P>0.05)。两组患者螺钉植入的准确性无明显差异(P>0.05)。除计算机组出现 1 例切口感染,经抗生素治疗后好转外,两组均未出现神经和椎动脉损伤、螺钉松动或断裂等并发症。术后 3 天和最后一次随访时,两组的 JOA 评分和 NDI 均明显改善(PP>0.05)。最后一次随访时,计算机组有21名患者(91.3%)和机器人组有18名患者(94.7%)实现了满意的寰枢椎融合,两组的融合率无明显差异(P>0.05):结论:计算机辅助或机器人辅助寰枢椎椎弓根螺钉植入术安全有效,机器人导航缩短了手术时间并减少了辐射暴露。
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
中国修复重建外科杂志
中国修复重建外科杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11334
期刊介绍:
×
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