Michael G Vitale, Ritt R Givens, Matan S Malka, Kevin Lu, Thomas M Zervos, Joseph Lombardi, Zeeshan Sardar, Ronald Lehman, Lawrence Lenke, Rajiv Sethi, Stephen Lewis, Daniel Hedequist, Themistocles Protopsaltis, A Noelle Larson, Sheeraz Qureshi, Brandon Carlson, Terrence T Kim, David Skaggs
{"title":"Building consensus: development of a best practice guideline (BPG) for avoiding errors in robotic-assisted spine surgery (RASS).","authors":"Michael G Vitale, Ritt R Givens, Matan S Malka, Kevin Lu, Thomas M Zervos, Joseph Lombardi, Zeeshan Sardar, Ronald Lehman, Lawrence Lenke, Rajiv Sethi, Stephen Lewis, Daniel Hedequist, Themistocles Protopsaltis, A Noelle Larson, Sheeraz Qureshi, Brandon Carlson, Terrence T Kim, David Skaggs","doi":"10.1007/s43390-025-01060-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>With the rapid increase in the use of robotic-assisted spine surgery (RASS), reports describing complications have inevitably emerged. This study builds on previous work done to identify, characterize, and classify potential sources of error in spine surgery performed with enabling technology in the operating room. The goal of this study is to leverage expert opinion to develop a set of best practice guidelines that can be employed to minimize complications and optimize patient safety, specifically as it relates to RASS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After assembling a group of attending spine surgeons experienced in the use of RASS across the country, formal consensus regarding the best practices was developed using the Delphi method and nominal group technique. After a review of the relevant literature and evidence, an initial survey of study group members (n=12) helped frame potential areas for investigation. Statements were subsequently edited, removed, or elaborated upon during four iterative rounds of live discussion with the opportunity for panelists to propose new guidelines at any point in the process. Respondents were able to suggest modifications and refine the statements until consensus, defined as ≥ 80% agreement, was achieved.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After a three-round iterative survey and video conference Delphi process, followed by an in-person meeting at the Summit for Safety in Spine Surgery, consensus was achieved on 27 best practice guideline statements. This BPG had the key focus areas of 1) general protocols, 2) screw planning/execution, 3) optimization of surgical technique, and 4) areas for robotic improvement. (available at https://safetyinspinesurgery.com/ ).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This work provides expert insight into the best practices for minimizing errors in RASS with the presentation of 27 recommendations that can serve to reduce practice variability, optimize safety, and guide future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":21796,"journal":{"name":"Spine deformity","volume":" ","pages":"1041-1049"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine deformity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-025-01060-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: With the rapid increase in the use of robotic-assisted spine surgery (RASS), reports describing complications have inevitably emerged. This study builds on previous work done to identify, characterize, and classify potential sources of error in spine surgery performed with enabling technology in the operating room. The goal of this study is to leverage expert opinion to develop a set of best practice guidelines that can be employed to minimize complications and optimize patient safety, specifically as it relates to RASS.
Methods: After assembling a group of attending spine surgeons experienced in the use of RASS across the country, formal consensus regarding the best practices was developed using the Delphi method and nominal group technique. After a review of the relevant literature and evidence, an initial survey of study group members (n=12) helped frame potential areas for investigation. Statements were subsequently edited, removed, or elaborated upon during four iterative rounds of live discussion with the opportunity for panelists to propose new guidelines at any point in the process. Respondents were able to suggest modifications and refine the statements until consensus, defined as ≥ 80% agreement, was achieved.
Results: After a three-round iterative survey and video conference Delphi process, followed by an in-person meeting at the Summit for Safety in Spine Surgery, consensus was achieved on 27 best practice guideline statements. This BPG had the key focus areas of 1) general protocols, 2) screw planning/execution, 3) optimization of surgical technique, and 4) areas for robotic improvement. (available at https://safetyinspinesurgery.com/ ).
Conclusion: This work provides expert insight into the best practices for minimizing errors in RASS with the presentation of 27 recommendations that can serve to reduce practice variability, optimize safety, and guide future research.
期刊介绍：
Spine Deformity the official journal of the?Scoliosis Research Society is a peer-refereed publication to disseminate knowledge on basic science and clinical research into the?etiology?biomechanics?treatment?methods and outcomes of all types of?spinal deformities. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal's area of interest.The?journal?will enhance the mission of the Society which is to foster the optimal care of all patients with?spine?deformities worldwide. Articles published in?Spine Deformity?are Medline indexed in PubMed.? The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research. Spine Deformity will only publish studies that have institutional review board (IRB) or similar ethics committee approval for human and animal studies and have strictly observed these guidelines. The minimum follow-up period for follow-up clinical studies is 24 months.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
