{"title":"颈椎手术中机器人或计算机辅助导航与透视徒手技术在颈椎后螺钉置入准确性方面的比较:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Lu-Ping Zhou, Ren-Jie Zhang, Yi Shang, Chen-Hao Zhao, Liang Kang, Chong-Yu Jia, Jia-Qi Wang, Hua-Qing Zhang, Cai-Liang Shen","doi":"10.3171/2024.5.SPINE24207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Robot guidance (RG) and computer-assisted navigation (CAN) have been increasingly utilized for posterior cervical screw placement in cervical spine surgery, and cervical screw malposition may contribute to catastrophic complications. However, the superiority of the navigation using RG or CAN compared with conventional freehand (FH) techniques remains controversial, and no meta-analysis comparing the two methods in cervical spine surgery has been performed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for eligible literature. Studies reporting the primary outcomes of the accuracy of cervical screw placement using RG or CAN compared with FH techniques were included. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias criteria and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of odds ratio or standardized mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One randomized controlled trial and 18 comparative cohort studies published between 2012 and 2023 consisting of 946 patients and 4163 cervical screws were included in this meta-analysis. The RG and CAN techniques were associated with a substantially higher rate of optimal and clinically acceptable cervical screw accuracy than FH techniques. Furthermore, compared with the FH group, the navigation group showed fewer postoperative adverse events, less blood loss, shorter hospital lengths of stay, and lower postoperative Neck Disability Index scores. However, the navigation and FH groups had equivalent intraoperative times and postoperative visual analog scale and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at the final follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both RG and CAN are superior to FH techniques in terms of the accuracy of cervical screw placement. Navigation techniques, including RG and CAN methods, are accurate, safe, and feasible in cervical spine surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"746-756"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of robotic or computer-assisted navigation versus fluoroscopic freehand techniques in the accuracy of posterior cervical screw placement during cervical spine surgery: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lu-Ping Zhou, Ren-Jie Zhang, Yi Shang, Chen-Hao Zhao, Liang Kang, Chong-Yu Jia, Jia-Qi Wang, Hua-Qing Zhang, Cai-Liang Shen\",\"doi\":\"10.3171/2024.5.SPINE24207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Robot guidance (RG) and computer-assisted navigation (CAN) have been increasingly utilized for posterior cervical screw placement in cervical spine surgery, and cervical screw malposition may contribute to catastrophic complications. However, the superiority of the navigation using RG or CAN compared with conventional freehand (FH) techniques remains controversial, and no meta-analysis comparing the two methods in cervical spine surgery has been performed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for eligible literature. Studies reporting the primary outcomes of the accuracy of cervical screw placement using RG or CAN compared with FH techniques were included. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias criteria and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of odds ratio or standardized mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One randomized controlled trial and 18 comparative cohort studies published between 2012 and 2023 consisting of 946 patients and 4163 cervical screws were included in this meta-analysis. The RG and CAN techniques were associated with a substantially higher rate of optimal and clinically acceptable cervical screw accuracy than FH techniques. Furthermore, compared with the FH group, the navigation group showed fewer postoperative adverse events, less blood loss, shorter hospital lengths of stay, and lower postoperative Neck Disability Index scores. However, the navigation and FH groups had equivalent intraoperative times and postoperative visual analog scale and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at the final follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both RG and CAN are superior to FH techniques in terms of the accuracy of cervical screw placement. Navigation techniques, including RG and CAN methods, are accurate, safe, and feasible in cervical spine surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"746-756\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.5.SPINE24207\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.5.SPINE24207","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of robotic or computer-assisted navigation versus fluoroscopic freehand techniques in the accuracy of posterior cervical screw placement during cervical spine surgery: a meta-analysis.
Objective: Robot guidance (RG) and computer-assisted navigation (CAN) have been increasingly utilized for posterior cervical screw placement in cervical spine surgery, and cervical screw malposition may contribute to catastrophic complications. However, the superiority of the navigation using RG or CAN compared with conventional freehand (FH) techniques remains controversial, and no meta-analysis comparing the two methods in cervical spine surgery has been performed.
Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for eligible literature. Studies reporting the primary outcomes of the accuracy of cervical screw placement using RG or CAN compared with FH techniques were included. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias criteria and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of odds ratio or standardized mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval.
Results: One randomized controlled trial and 18 comparative cohort studies published between 2012 and 2023 consisting of 946 patients and 4163 cervical screws were included in this meta-analysis. The RG and CAN techniques were associated with a substantially higher rate of optimal and clinically acceptable cervical screw accuracy than FH techniques. Furthermore, compared with the FH group, the navigation group showed fewer postoperative adverse events, less blood loss, shorter hospital lengths of stay, and lower postoperative Neck Disability Index scores. However, the navigation and FH groups had equivalent intraoperative times and postoperative visual analog scale and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at the final follow-up.
Conclusions: Both RG and CAN are superior to FH techniques in terms of the accuracy of cervical screw placement. Navigation techniques, including RG and CAN methods, are accurate, safe, and feasible in cervical spine surgery.
期刊介绍:
Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.