Screw Insertion Time, Fluoroscopy Time, and Operation Time for Robotic-Assisted Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Compared With Freehand Technique

被引:5
|
作者
Torii, Yoshiaki [1 ]
Ueno, Jun [1 ]
Umehara, Tasuku [1 ]
Iinuma, Masahiro [1 ]
Yoshida, Atsuhiro [1 ]
Tomochika, Ken [1 ]
Niki, Hisateru [1 ]
Akazawa, Tsutomu [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] St Marianna Univ, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Sch Med, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan
[2] St Marianna Univ Hosp, Spine Ctr, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan
关键词
robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement; spinal navigation; screw insertion time; radiation exposure; fluoroscopy; spine robotic system; freehand technique; lumbar spine pedicle screw placement; robotic-assisted spine; surgery; SURGEONS;
D O I
10.7759/cureus.25039
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction The purpose of this study was to clarify the superiority of robotic-assisted lumbar pedicle screw placement in terms of screw insertion time, fluoroscopy time, and operation time. Methods The subjects were 46 patients who underwent a posterior lumbar interbody fusion with an open procedure for lumbar degenerative disease from April 2021 to February 2022. The robot group contained 29 cases of screw insertion using a spine robotic system (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic Inc., Dublin, Ireland). The freehand group contained 17 cases of screw insertion with the freehand technique utilizing the conventional C-arm image guidance. The screw insertion time, fluoroscopy time, and operation time were compared between the robot and the freehand group. Results The screw insertion time did not differ significantly between the two groups (robot group: 179.0 +/- 65.2 sec; freehand group: 164.2 +/- 83.4 sec; p = 0.507). The fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the robot group (robot group: 28.3 +/- 25.8 sec; freehand group: 67.5 +/- 72.8 sec; p = 0.011). The fluoroscopy time per segment was also significantly shorter in the robot group (robot group: 17.8 +/- 23.0 sec; freehand group: 60.2 +/- 74.8 sec; p = 0.007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robot group (robot group: 249.6 +/- 72.5 min; freehand group: 195.8 +/- 60.1 sec; p = 0.013), but the operation time per segment did not differ significantly between the two groups (robot group: 144.1 +/- 39.0 min; freehand group: 159.7 +/- 34.4 min; p = 0.477). Conclusions The screw insertion time and operation time per segment were similar when employing the spine robotic system compared to the freehand technique; however, the fluoroscopy time was shorter. The fluoroscopy time per segment in the robot group was 29.6% of the time of the freehand group using the C-arm. The surgeon's radiation exposure is thought to be decreased since the spine robotic system shortens the fluoroscopy time.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Robotic-Assisted Percutaneous Screw Placement: A Case Report
    McVeigh, Luke
    Anokwute, Miracle C.
    Huh, Andrew
    Blucker, Nathaniel
    Lane, Brandon C.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2022, 14 (02)
  • [22] Accuracy of robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery
    Molliqaj, Granit
    Schatlo, Bawarjan
    Alaid, Awad
    Solomiichuk, Volodymyr
    Rohde, Veit
    Schaller, Karl
    Tessitore, Enrico
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2017, 42 (05)
  • [23] Flattening the learning curve - Early experience of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement in spine surgery
    Srinivasa, Vidyadhara
    Thirugnanam, Balamurugan
    Kanhangad, Madhava Pai
    Soni, Abhishek
    Kashyap, Anjana
    Vidyadhara, Alia
    Rao, Sharath K.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS, 2024, 57 : 49 - 54
  • [24] Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement fails to reduce overall postoperative complications in fusion surgery
    Lieber, Alexander M.
    Kirchner, Gregory J.
    Kerbel, Yehuda E.
    Khalsa, Amrit S.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2019, 19 (02): : 212 - 217
  • [25] Freehand technique for C2 pedicle and pars screw placement: is it safe?
    Punyarat, Prachya
    Buchowski, Jacob M.
    Klawson, Benjamin T.
    Peters, Colleen
    Lertudomphonwanit, Thamrong
    Riew, K. Daniel
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 18 (07): : 1197 - 1203
  • [26] Pedicle Screw Insertion Accuracy Using O-Arm, Robotic Guidance, or Freehand Technique A Comparative Study
    Laudato, Pietro Aniello
    Pierzchala, Katarzyna
    Schizas, Constantin
    SPINE, 2018, 43 (06) : E373 - E378
  • [27] Computer-Assisted Screw Size and Insertion Trajectory Planning for Pedicle Screw Placement Surgery
    Knez, Dejan
    Likar, Bostjan
    Pernus, Franjo
    Vrtovec, Tomaz
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 2016, 35 (06) : 1420 - 1430
  • [28] A novel computer-assisted technique for pedicle screw insertion
    John, P. S.
    James, C.
    Antony, J.
    Tessamma, T.
    Ananda, R.
    Dinesh, K.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2007, 3 (01): : 59 - 63
  • [29] Robotic-assisted navigated minimally invasive pedicle screw placement in the first 100 cases at a single institution
    Huntsman, Kade T.
    Ahrendtsen, Leigh A.
    Riggleman, Jessica R.
    Ledonio, Charles G.
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2020, 14 (01) : 199 - 203
  • [30] Pedicle screw insertion: robotic assistance versus conventional C-arm fluoroscopy
    Schizas, Constantin
    Thein, Eric
    Kwiatkowski, Barbara
    Kulik, Gerit
    ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA BELGICA, 2012, 78 (02): : 240 - 245