脊柱外科主要机器人平台关键性能指标的比较:14462个螺钉的网络meta分析。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Robert Koucheki, John-Peter Bonello, Aazad Abbas, Johnathan Lex, Anne L Versteeg, Mohammad Zarrabian, Perry Dhaliwal, Joel Finkelstein, Stephen Lewis, Jay Toor
{"title":"脊柱外科主要机器人平台关键性能指标的比较:14462个螺钉的网络meta分析。","authors":"Robert Koucheki, John-Peter Bonello, Aazad Abbas, Johnathan Lex, Anne L Versteeg, Mohammad Zarrabian, Perry Dhaliwal, Joel Finkelstein, Stephen Lewis, Jay Toor","doi":"10.1007/s00586-025-08990-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This meta-analysis compares prominent robotic platforms for spinal surgery, using conventional (freehand or fluoroscopy) and non-robotic navigation as common controls.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Studies comparing screw placement of robot-assisted surgery with freehand/fluoroscopic or non-robotic navigation were included. Standard pairwise and network meta-analysis techniques with a random effects model (REM) were used with significance set at P < 0.05. Primary objective was to compare screw placement accuracy and breach incidence across robot platforms. Secondary objective was to compare neurologic complication (NC) rate and blood loss (BL) among platforms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 27 studies totaling 3404 patients were included. The robotic group demonstrated significantly fewer breaches compared to the conventional group (OR 0.54, P = 0.0004). The TiRobot (TINAVI) and Renaissance (Mazor) demonstrated the best overall accuracy. The robotic group demonstrated significantly lower NC (OR 0.3, P = 0.02) and lower BL (MD: - 112.74 mL, P = 0.002) compared to the conventional approach (freehand or fluoroscopy). Potential conflicts of interest and source bias were found in 60% of TiRobot and 30% of SpineAssist studies. Robotic surgery had significantly lower major breach rates compared to non-robotic navigation (OR 0.39, P = 0.04). The Mazor X model was superior between all robotic platforms, with an OR of 0.15 (95% CrI 0.01 to 0.69, P < 0.00001, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) for major breaches compared to non-robotic navigation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robot-assisted navigation platforms show significant reduction in breach rates compared to conventional and non-robotic navigation approaches in adult spinal instrumentation surgery. MazorX (Mazor), TiRobot (TINAVI) and Renaissance (Mazor) emerge as leaders in robotic spine surgery, each contributing to the increase efficacy. To obtain a more reliable evidence base guiding clinical practice and decision-making on the safety, efficacy, and superiority of specific robot-assisted navigation platforms in spinal surgery, further unbiased RCTs with international collaborations are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of key performance metrics of major robotic platforms in spine surgery: a network meta-analysis of 14,462 screws.\",\"authors\":\"Robert Koucheki, John-Peter Bonello, Aazad Abbas, Johnathan Lex, Anne L Versteeg, Mohammad Zarrabian, Perry Dhaliwal, Joel Finkelstein, Stephen Lewis, Jay Toor\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00586-025-08990-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This meta-analysis compares prominent robotic platforms for spinal surgery, using conventional (freehand or fluoroscopy) and non-robotic navigation as common controls.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Studies comparing screw placement of robot-assisted surgery with freehand/fluoroscopic or non-robotic navigation were included. Standard pairwise and network meta-analysis techniques with a random effects model (REM) were used with significance set at P < 0.05. Primary objective was to compare screw placement accuracy and breach incidence across robot platforms. Secondary objective was to compare neurologic complication (NC) rate and blood loss (BL) among platforms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 27 studies totaling 3404 patients were included. The robotic group demonstrated significantly fewer breaches compared to the conventional group (OR 0.54, P = 0.0004). The TiRobot (TINAVI) and Renaissance (Mazor) demonstrated the best overall accuracy. The robotic group demonstrated significantly lower NC (OR 0.3, P = 0.02) and lower BL (MD: - 112.74 mL, P = 0.002) compared to the conventional approach (freehand or fluoroscopy). Potential conflicts of interest and source bias were found in 60% of TiRobot and 30% of SpineAssist studies. Robotic surgery had significantly lower major breach rates compared to non-robotic navigation (OR 0.39, P = 0.04). The Mazor X model was superior between all robotic platforms, with an OR of 0.15 (95% CrI 0.01 to 0.69, P < 0.00001, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) for major breaches compared to non-robotic navigation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robot-assisted navigation platforms show significant reduction in breach rates compared to conventional and non-robotic navigation approaches in adult spinal instrumentation surgery. MazorX (Mazor), TiRobot (TINAVI) and Renaissance (Mazor) emerge as leaders in robotic spine surgery, each contributing to the increase efficacy. To obtain a more reliable evidence base guiding clinical practice and decision-making on the safety, efficacy, and superiority of specific robot-assisted navigation platforms in spinal surgery, further unbiased RCTs with international collaborations are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08990-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08990-y","RegionNum":3,"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:本荟萃分析比较了脊柱手术中突出的机器人平台,使用传统(手绘或透视)和非机器人导航作为常见控制。方法:采用MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库进行文献检索。将机器人辅助手术置入螺钉与徒手/透视或非机器人导航进行比较的研究包括在内。采用随机效应模型(REM)的标准两两和网络meta分析技术,显著性设置为P。结果:共纳入27项研究,共纳入3404例患者。与常规组相比,机器人组的破坏明显减少(OR 0.54, P = 0.0004)。TiRobot (TINAVI)和Renaissance (Mazor)展示了最佳的整体准确性。与常规入路(徒手或透视)相比,机器人组NC (OR 0.3, P = 0.02)和BL (MD: - 112.74 mL, P = 0.002)显著降低。在60%的TiRobot和30%的SpineAssist研究中发现了潜在的利益冲突和来源偏差。与非机器人导航相比,机器人手术的主要破裂率显著降低(OR 0.39, P = 0.04)。与非机器人导航相比,Mazor X模型在所有机器人平台之间的优势为0.15 (95% CrI 0.01至0.69,P 2 = 0%)。结论:在成人脊柱内固定手术中,与传统和非机器人导航方法相比,机器人辅助导航平台显著降低了骨折率。MazorX (Mazor), TiRobot (TINAVI)和Renaissance (Mazor)成为机器人脊柱手术的领导者,它们都为提高疗效做出了贡献。为了获得更可靠的证据基础来指导脊柱外科中特定机器人辅助导航平台的安全性、有效性和优越性的临床实践和决策,需要进一步开展具有国际合作的无偏随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of key performance metrics of major robotic platforms in spine surgery: a network meta-analysis of 14,462 screws.

Purpose: This meta-analysis compares prominent robotic platforms for spinal surgery, using conventional (freehand or fluoroscopy) and non-robotic navigation as common controls.

Methods: Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Studies comparing screw placement of robot-assisted surgery with freehand/fluoroscopic or non-robotic navigation were included. Standard pairwise and network meta-analysis techniques with a random effects model (REM) were used with significance set at P < 0.05. Primary objective was to compare screw placement accuracy and breach incidence across robot platforms. Secondary objective was to compare neurologic complication (NC) rate and blood loss (BL) among platforms.

Results: A total of 27 studies totaling 3404 patients were included. The robotic group demonstrated significantly fewer breaches compared to the conventional group (OR 0.54, P = 0.0004). The TiRobot (TINAVI) and Renaissance (Mazor) demonstrated the best overall accuracy. The robotic group demonstrated significantly lower NC (OR 0.3, P = 0.02) and lower BL (MD: - 112.74 mL, P = 0.002) compared to the conventional approach (freehand or fluoroscopy). Potential conflicts of interest and source bias were found in 60% of TiRobot and 30% of SpineAssist studies. Robotic surgery had significantly lower major breach rates compared to non-robotic navigation (OR 0.39, P = 0.04). The Mazor X model was superior between all robotic platforms, with an OR of 0.15 (95% CrI 0.01 to 0.69, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) for major breaches compared to non-robotic navigation.

Conclusion: Robot-assisted navigation platforms show significant reduction in breach rates compared to conventional and non-robotic navigation approaches in adult spinal instrumentation surgery. MazorX (Mazor), TiRobot (TINAVI) and Renaissance (Mazor) emerge as leaders in robotic spine surgery, each contributing to the increase efficacy. To obtain a more reliable evidence base guiding clinical practice and decision-making on the safety, efficacy, and superiority of specific robot-assisted navigation platforms in spinal surgery, further unbiased RCTs with international collaborations are needed.

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
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: "European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts. Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信