Positioning accuracy and facet joints violation after percutaneous pedicle screws placement with robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided technique: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 0.8 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice Pub Date : 2023-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-27 DOI:10.25259/JNRP_147_2023
Andrea Perna, Calogero Velluto, Amarildo Smakaj, Francesco Tamburrelli, Maria Ilaria Borruto, Domenico Alessandro Santagada, Franco Lucio Gorgoglione, Francesco Liuzza, Luca Proietti
{"title":"Positioning accuracy and facet joints violation after percutaneous pedicle screws placement with robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided technique: Systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Andrea Perna,&nbsp;Calogero Velluto,&nbsp;Amarildo Smakaj,&nbsp;Francesco Tamburrelli,&nbsp;Maria Ilaria Borruto,&nbsp;Domenico Alessandro Santagada,&nbsp;Franco Lucio Gorgoglione,&nbsp;Francesco Liuzza,&nbsp;Luca Proietti","doi":"10.25259/JNRP_147_2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Minimally invasive spine surgery became the gold standard for the treatment of many spinal diseases. Only a few comparative studies were performed regarding the superiority of robotic-assisted (RA) surgery over fluoroscopic guidance (FG) surgery during percutaneous pedicle screws placement. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy and potential advantages of RA compared with FG.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This study is a systematic literature review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The review questions were formulated following the PICO scheme. Measured outcomes were presented using Forest plots. Heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed using the χ<sup>2</sup> test, and the I<sup>2</sup> statistic was utilized to estimate the proportion of total variation among the studies. A value exceeding 50% was considered indicative of substantial heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies that met inclusion criteria were finally included in this meta-analysis. These seven studies include: 447 patients, 228 patients (931 screws) treated with robotic guide, and 219 patients (767 pedicle screws) using fluoroscopic guide, with a mean age of 55.2. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws were 94.3% in the robot-assisted group and 89% in the fluoroscopic guided group. The percentages of non-acceptable screws were 5.7% in the robot-assisted group and 11% in the fluoroscopic-guided group.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of radiographic and clinical outcomes, with the robotic-assisted pedicle screw group exhibiting longer operative times. Robot technology serves as a valuable tool for assisting surgeons in challenging scenarios such as anatomical variants or patients with spinal deformities, ensuring accurate screw placement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The accuracy of pedicle screw placement with robotic technology is higher than with FG. In fact, the robotic approach allows significantly lower complication rates, fewer cases of violation of the proximal articular facet, less intraoperative exposure to radiation, even if it requires longer surgical times than the FG technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":16443,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice","volume":"14 3","pages":"406-412"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10483214/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/JNRP_147_2023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Minimally invasive spine surgery became the gold standard for the treatment of many spinal diseases. Only a few comparative studies were performed regarding the superiority of robotic-assisted (RA) surgery over fluoroscopic guidance (FG) surgery during percutaneous pedicle screws placement. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy and potential advantages of RA compared with FG.

Material and methods: This study is a systematic literature review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The review questions were formulated following the PICO scheme. Measured outcomes were presented using Forest plots. Heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed using the χ2 test, and the I2 statistic was utilized to estimate the proportion of total variation among the studies. A value exceeding 50% was considered indicative of substantial heterogeneity.

Results: Seven studies that met inclusion criteria were finally included in this meta-analysis. These seven studies include: 447 patients, 228 patients (931 screws) treated with robotic guide, and 219 patients (767 pedicle screws) using fluoroscopic guide, with a mean age of 55.2. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws were 94.3% in the robot-assisted group and 89% in the fluoroscopic guided group. The percentages of non-acceptable screws were 5.7% in the robot-assisted group and 11% in the fluoroscopic-guided group.

Discussion: Significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of radiographic and clinical outcomes, with the robotic-assisted pedicle screw group exhibiting longer operative times. Robot technology serves as a valuable tool for assisting surgeons in challenging scenarios such as anatomical variants or patients with spinal deformities, ensuring accurate screw placement.

Conclusion: The accuracy of pedicle screw placement with robotic technology is higher than with FG. In fact, the robotic approach allows significantly lower complication rates, fewer cases of violation of the proximal articular facet, less intraoperative exposure to radiation, even if it requires longer surgical times than the FG technique.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机器人辅助与荧光镜引导经皮椎弓根螺钉置入术后的定位准确性和小关节侵犯:系统综述和荟萃分析。
简介:微创脊柱手术成为治疗许多脊柱疾病的黄金标准。关于经皮椎弓根螺钉置入过程中机器人辅助(RA)手术优于荧光镜引导(FG)手术的优越性,仅进行了少数比较研究。因此,本研究的目的是进行系统的文献综述和荟萃分析,以评估RA与FG相比的准确性和潜在优势。材料和方法:本研究是根据系统综述首选报告项目和荟萃分析指南进行的系统文献综述。审查问题是根据PICO方案制定的。测量结果采用森林图表示。使用χ2检验评估纳入研究之间的异质性,并使用I2统计量估计研究之间的总变异比例。超过50%的数值被认为表明存在显著的异质性。结果:符合纳入标准的7项研究最终纳入本荟萃分析。这七项研究包括:447名患者,228名患者(931颗螺钉)接受机器人引导治疗,219名患者(767颗椎弓根螺钉)接受荧光镜引导治疗,平均年龄55.2岁。机器人辅助组和荧光镜引导组的临床可接受螺钉百分比分别为94.3%和89%。不合格螺钉的百分比在机器人辅助组为5.7%,在荧光镜引导组为11%。讨论:两组在放射学和临床结果方面存在显著差异,机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉组的手术时间更长。机器人技术是一种有价值的工具,可以在解剖变异或脊柱畸形患者等具有挑战性的情况下帮助外科医生,确保螺钉的准确放置。结论:机器人技术放置椎弓根螺钉的准确性高于FG。事实上,机器人入路可以显著降低并发症发生率,减少近端关节面侵犯的病例,减少术中暴露于辐射的情况,即使它比FG技术需要更长的手术时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
129
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cerebral microbleeds: Causes, clinical relevance, and imaging approach - A narrative review. Erratum: A case of anterior cerebral artery A1 segment hypoplasia syndrome presenting with right lower limb monoplegia, abulia, and urinary incontinence. Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in immunocompromised children - A single-center study from South India. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy associated with rituximab treatment. Transcranial direct current stimulation-efficacy in mild cognitive impairment: A meta-analysis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1