{"title":"机器人辅助与导航引导微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术的比较:一项多中心研究。","authors":"Dennis Chen Heath, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Chih-Chang Chang, Hao-Chien Yang, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Bing-Hung Hsu, Ming-Chin Lin, Jau-Ching Wu, Chien-Min Lin, Wen-Cheng Huang, Heng-Wei Liu","doi":"10.3171/2024.9.FOCUS24521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Both robot and computer navigation have significantly improved the accuracy and safety of percutaneous pedicle screw placement compared with a freehand fluoroscopy-guided technique. However, how the two new technologies compare with each other is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted and navigation-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted with patients who underwent 1- to 3-level MIS-TLIF from 2019 to 2022. The surgical indication was symptomatic spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis that failed conservative management. Screw accuracy and safety were compared between robot and computer navigation systems by obtaining postoperative CT images in all patients. The screw accuracy was determined by the Gertzbein and Robbins classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 100 patients were divided into robot-assisted (RA; n = 42) and O-arm navigation (ON; n = 58) groups, with 514 percutaneous pedicle screws placed. Clinically satisfactory accuracy was achieved in 100% of the RA group and 92.1% of the ON group (p < 0.001). There were no medial breaches or revision surgeries for screw malposition in either group. The RA group showed similar overall operation time to the ON group (263.54 ± 114.33 vs 243.4 ± 68.96 minutes, p = 0.2821). Subgroup analyses showed that there was no difference in 1-level MIS-TLIF, but the RA group had significantly more operative time for 2-level MIS-TLIF than the ON group (324.67 ± 101.25 vs 266.4 ± 66.38 minutes, p = 0.0264).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Screw accuracy was significantly better in the RA group, with slightly more operation time, compared with the navigation group. Neither group required revision surgery or reoperation for screw malposition.</p>","PeriodicalId":19187,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical focus","volume":"57 6","pages":"E12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between robot-assisted and navigation-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study.\",\"authors\":\"Dennis Chen Heath, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Chih-Chang Chang, Hao-Chien Yang, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Bing-Hung Hsu, Ming-Chin Lin, Jau-Ching Wu, Chien-Min Lin, Wen-Cheng Huang, Heng-Wei Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.3171/2024.9.FOCUS24521\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Both robot and computer navigation have significantly improved the accuracy and safety of percutaneous pedicle screw placement compared with a freehand fluoroscopy-guided technique. However, how the two new technologies compare with each other is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted and navigation-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted with patients who underwent 1- to 3-level MIS-TLIF from 2019 to 2022. The surgical indication was symptomatic spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis that failed conservative management. Screw accuracy and safety were compared between robot and computer navigation systems by obtaining postoperative CT images in all patients. The screw accuracy was determined by the Gertzbein and Robbins classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 100 patients were divided into robot-assisted (RA; n = 42) and O-arm navigation (ON; n = 58) groups, with 514 percutaneous pedicle screws placed. Clinically satisfactory accuracy was achieved in 100% of the RA group and 92.1% of the ON group (p < 0.001). There were no medial breaches or revision surgeries for screw malposition in either group. The RA group showed similar overall operation time to the ON group (263.54 ± 114.33 vs 243.4 ± 68.96 minutes, p = 0.2821). Subgroup analyses showed that there was no difference in 1-level MIS-TLIF, but the RA group had significantly more operative time for 2-level MIS-TLIF than the ON group (324.67 ± 101.25 vs 266.4 ± 66.38 minutes, p = 0.0264).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Screw accuracy was significantly better in the RA group, with slightly more operation time, compared with the navigation group. Neither group required revision surgery or reoperation for screw malposition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurosurgical focus\",\"volume\":\"57 6\",\"pages\":\"E12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurosurgical focus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.9.FOCUS24521\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical focus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.9.FOCUS24521","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:与徒手透视引导技术相比,机器人和计算机导航均能显著提高经皮椎弓根螺钉置入的准确性和安全性。然而,这两种新技术如何相互比较还不得而知。本研究的目的是探讨机器人辅助和导航引导下经皮椎弓根螺钉置入微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)的准确性和安全性。方法:对2019年至2022年接受1至3级MIS-TLIF的患者进行多中心回顾性研究。手术指征是有症状的椎管狭窄和脊椎滑脱,保守治疗失败。通过获取所有患者的术后CT图像,比较机器人与计算机导航系统的螺钉精度和安全性。螺钉精度由Gertzbein和Robbins分类确定。结果:100例患者分为机器人辅助(RA;n = 42)和o型臂导航(ON;N = 58)组,置入经皮椎弓根螺钉514枚。RA组和ON组的准确率分别为100%和92.1% (p < 0.001)。两组均未发生内侧骨折或螺钉错位翻修手术。RA组总手术时间与ON组相似(263.54±114.33 vs 243.4±68.96,p = 0.2821)。亚组分析显示,两组间1级MIS-TLIF无差异,但RA组2级MIS-TLIF手术时间明显长于ON组(324.67±101.25 vs 266.4±66.38分钟,p = 0.0264)。结论:RA组螺钉精度明显优于导航组,手术时间稍长。两组均不需要翻修手术或螺钉错位再手术。
Comparison between robot-assisted and navigation-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study.
Objective: Both robot and computer navigation have significantly improved the accuracy and safety of percutaneous pedicle screw placement compared with a freehand fluoroscopy-guided technique. However, how the two new technologies compare with each other is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted and navigation-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).
Methods: A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted with patients who underwent 1- to 3-level MIS-TLIF from 2019 to 2022. The surgical indication was symptomatic spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis that failed conservative management. Screw accuracy and safety were compared between robot and computer navigation systems by obtaining postoperative CT images in all patients. The screw accuracy was determined by the Gertzbein and Robbins classification.
Results: A total of 100 patients were divided into robot-assisted (RA; n = 42) and O-arm navigation (ON; n = 58) groups, with 514 percutaneous pedicle screws placed. Clinically satisfactory accuracy was achieved in 100% of the RA group and 92.1% of the ON group (p < 0.001). There were no medial breaches or revision surgeries for screw malposition in either group. The RA group showed similar overall operation time to the ON group (263.54 ± 114.33 vs 243.4 ± 68.96 minutes, p = 0.2821). Subgroup analyses showed that there was no difference in 1-level MIS-TLIF, but the RA group had significantly more operative time for 2-level MIS-TLIF than the ON group (324.67 ± 101.25 vs 266.4 ± 66.38 minutes, p = 0.0264).
Conclusions: Screw accuracy was significantly better in the RA group, with slightly more operation time, compared with the navigation group. Neither group required revision surgery or reoperation for screw malposition.