机器人脊柱系统:克服外科医生经验对椎弓根螺钉准确性的影响:一项前瞻性研究。

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Asian Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-22 DOI:10.31616/asj.2024.0191
Madhava Pai Kanhangad, Vidyadhara Srinivasa, Balamurugan Thirugnanam, Abhishek Soni, Anjana Kashyap, Alia Vidyadhara, Sharath Kumar Rao
{"title":"机器人脊柱系统:克服外科医生经验对椎弓根螺钉准确性的影响:一项前瞻性研究。","authors":"Madhava Pai Kanhangad, Vidyadhara Srinivasa, Balamurugan Thirugnanam, Abhishek Soni, Anjana Kashyap, Alia Vidyadhara, Sharath Kumar Rao","doi":"10.31616/asj.2024.0191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective single-center study.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of pedicle screws placed by freehand and under fluoroscopy and robotic assistance with intraoperative image acquisition.</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>Pedicle screws are the most commonly used spinal anchors owing to their ability to stabilize all three spinal columns. Various techniques such as freehand, fluoroscopy-assisted, and navigation-assisted pedicle screw placements have been used with varying degrees of accuracy. Most studies on robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement have utilized preoperatively acquired computed tomography scans. To our knowledge, this is the only study in the literature that compared freehand with fluoroscopy-guided and robotic-assisted pedicle screw insertion with freehand and fluoroscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective study, a total of 1,120 pedicle screws were placed in the freehand group (n=175), 1,250 in the fluoroscopyassisted group (n=172), and 1,225 in the robotic-assisted group (n=180). Surgical parameters and screw accuracy were analyzed between the three groups. The preoperative plan overlapped with the postoperative O-arm scan to determine if the screws were executed as planned.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The frequency of clinically acceptable screw placement (Gertzbein-Robbins grades A and B) in the freehand, fluoroscopy-assisted, and robotic-assisted groups were 97.7%, 98.6%, and 99.34%, respectively. With robotic assistance, an experience-neutralizing effect implied that surgeons with varying levels of experience achieved comparable pedicle screw accuracy, blood loss, O-arm time, robot time, and time per screw. No significant difference in these parameters was found between surgeries commencing before and after 2 PM. No significant differences were noted between the planned and executed screw trajectories in the robotic-assisted group irrespective of surgical experience.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The third-generation robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement system used in conjunction with intraoperative threedimensional O-arm imaging consistently demonstrates safe and accurate screw placement with an experience-neutralizing effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11538820/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robotic spine systems: overcoming surgeon experience in pedicle screw accuracy: a prospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Madhava Pai Kanhangad, Vidyadhara Srinivasa, Balamurugan Thirugnanam, Abhishek Soni, Anjana Kashyap, Alia Vidyadhara, Sharath Kumar Rao\",\"doi\":\"10.31616/asj.2024.0191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective single-center study.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of pedicle screws placed by freehand and under fluoroscopy and robotic assistance with intraoperative image acquisition.</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>Pedicle screws are the most commonly used spinal anchors owing to their ability to stabilize all three spinal columns. Various techniques such as freehand, fluoroscopy-assisted, and navigation-assisted pedicle screw placements have been used with varying degrees of accuracy. Most studies on robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement have utilized preoperatively acquired computed tomography scans. To our knowledge, this is the only study in the literature that compared freehand with fluoroscopy-guided and robotic-assisted pedicle screw insertion with freehand and fluoroscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective study, a total of 1,120 pedicle screws were placed in the freehand group (n=175), 1,250 in the fluoroscopyassisted group (n=172), and 1,225 in the robotic-assisted group (n=180). Surgical parameters and screw accuracy were analyzed between the three groups. The preoperative plan overlapped with the postoperative O-arm scan to determine if the screws were executed as planned.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The frequency of clinically acceptable screw placement (Gertzbein-Robbins grades A and B) in the freehand, fluoroscopy-assisted, and robotic-assisted groups were 97.7%, 98.6%, and 99.34%, respectively. With robotic assistance, an experience-neutralizing effect implied that surgeons with varying levels of experience achieved comparable pedicle screw accuracy, blood loss, O-arm time, robot time, and time per screw. No significant difference in these parameters was found between surgeries commencing before and after 2 PM. No significant differences were noted between the planned and executed screw trajectories in the robotic-assisted group irrespective of surgical experience.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The third-generation robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement system used in conjunction with intraoperative threedimensional O-arm imaging consistently demonstrates safe and accurate screw placement with an experience-neutralizing effect.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11538820/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计目的:通过术中图像采集,比较徒手放置椎弓根螺钉和在透视及机器人辅助下放置椎弓根螺钉的准确性:椎弓根螺钉是最常用的脊柱固定物,因为它能够稳定三根脊柱。自由操作、透视辅助和导航辅助椎弓根螺钉置放等各种技术均有使用,但准确度各不相同。大多数关于机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉置入的研究都是利用术前获得的计算机断层扫描。据我们所知,这是文献中唯一一项比较徒手与透视引导和机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉植入与徒手和透视引导的研究:在这项前瞻性研究中,徒手组(175 人)共植入 1120 颗椎弓根螺钉,透视辅助组(172 人)共植入 1250 颗,机器人辅助组(180 人)共植入 1225 颗。对三组的手术参数和螺钉精确度进行了分析。术前计划与术后O型臂扫描重叠,以确定螺钉是否按计划实施:徒手组、透视辅助组和机器人辅助组临床上可接受的螺钉置入率(Gertzbein-Robbins A级和B级)分别为97.7%、98.6%和99.34%。在机器人辅助下,经验中和效应意味着具有不同经验水平的外科医生在椎弓根螺钉的精确度、失血量、O型臂时间、机器人时间和每枚螺钉的时间上都具有可比性。下午 2 点之前和之后开始的手术在这些参数上没有明显差异。无论手术经验如何,机器人辅助组计划的螺钉轨迹和执行的螺钉轨迹均无明显差异:结论:第三代机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉置入系统与术中三维 O 型臂成像技术结合使用,始终保持了螺钉置入的安全性和准确性,并且具有经验中和效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Robotic spine systems: overcoming surgeon experience in pedicle screw accuracy: a prospective study.

Study design: Prospective single-center study.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of pedicle screws placed by freehand and under fluoroscopy and robotic assistance with intraoperative image acquisition.

Overview of literature: Pedicle screws are the most commonly used spinal anchors owing to their ability to stabilize all three spinal columns. Various techniques such as freehand, fluoroscopy-assisted, and navigation-assisted pedicle screw placements have been used with varying degrees of accuracy. Most studies on robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement have utilized preoperatively acquired computed tomography scans. To our knowledge, this is the only study in the literature that compared freehand with fluoroscopy-guided and robotic-assisted pedicle screw insertion with freehand and fluoroscopy.

Methods: In this prospective study, a total of 1,120 pedicle screws were placed in the freehand group (n=175), 1,250 in the fluoroscopyassisted group (n=172), and 1,225 in the robotic-assisted group (n=180). Surgical parameters and screw accuracy were analyzed between the three groups. The preoperative plan overlapped with the postoperative O-arm scan to determine if the screws were executed as planned.

Results: The frequency of clinically acceptable screw placement (Gertzbein-Robbins grades A and B) in the freehand, fluoroscopy-assisted, and robotic-assisted groups were 97.7%, 98.6%, and 99.34%, respectively. With robotic assistance, an experience-neutralizing effect implied that surgeons with varying levels of experience achieved comparable pedicle screw accuracy, blood loss, O-arm time, robot time, and time per screw. No significant difference in these parameters was found between surgeries commencing before and after 2 PM. No significant differences were noted between the planned and executed screw trajectories in the robotic-assisted group irrespective of surgical experience.

Conclusions: The third-generation robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement system used in conjunction with intraoperative threedimensional O-arm imaging consistently demonstrates safe and accurate screw placement with an experience-neutralizing effect.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Spine Journal
Asian Spine Journal ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
108
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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