Is robot-assisted pedicle screw placement really superior to conventional surgery? An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Efort Open Reviews Pub Date : 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1530/EOR-24-0062
Wen-Xi Sun, Ming-Wang Qiu, Ze-Hui Gao, Hong-Shen Wang, Bo-Lai Chen, Yong-Peng Lin
{"title":"Is robot-assisted pedicle screw placement really superior to conventional surgery? An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.","authors":"Wen-Xi Sun, Ming-Wang Qiu, Ze-Hui Gao, Hong-Shen Wang, Bo-Lai Chen, Yong-Peng Lin","doi":"10.1530/EOR-24-0062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over the past two decades, modern spine surgery has become increasingly intellectualized and minimally invasive. However, whether using robots in spine surgery results in more accurate pedicle screw placement remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to evaluate the certainty and quality of the available evidence on the efficacy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed an overview of reviews including systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) regarding the accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement. Regarding the SRs/MAs, five electronic databases were searched from inception to 28 April 2023. There were no restrictions on the language or population. The quality and certainty of the evidence were evaluated with PRISMA, AMSTAR-2, ROBIS, Veritas plot, and GRADE tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen SRs/MAs were analyzed. The findings indicated that the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the robot-assisted group was not superior to that in the freehand group. All the SRs/MAs were of low or critically low quality. The main reasons for this include missing data, lack of transparency, lack of sensitivity analysis, and measurement of heterogeneity in the included studies, registration of reporting protocols, and deficiencies in the study inclusion methods and selection criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While there is potential for robot-assisted pedicle screw placement to offer superior accuracy compared to conventional surgery, the current evidence is limited by methodological shortcomings. The quality of the studies analyzed was insufficient to provide a robust basis for developing clinical guidelines. Further high-quality research is necessary to confirm the benefits and establish clearer recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48598,"journal":{"name":"Efort Open Reviews","volume":"9 11","pages":"1077-1086"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Efort Open Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-24-0062","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Over the past two decades, modern spine surgery has become increasingly intellectualized and minimally invasive. However, whether using robots in spine surgery results in more accurate pedicle screw placement remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to evaluate the certainty and quality of the available evidence on the efficacy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement.

Methods: We performed an overview of reviews including systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) regarding the accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement. Regarding the SRs/MAs, five electronic databases were searched from inception to 28 April 2023. There were no restrictions on the language or population. The quality and certainty of the evidence were evaluated with PRISMA, AMSTAR-2, ROBIS, Veritas plot, and GRADE tools.

Results: Fifteen SRs/MAs were analyzed. The findings indicated that the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the robot-assisted group was not superior to that in the freehand group. All the SRs/MAs were of low or critically low quality. The main reasons for this include missing data, lack of transparency, lack of sensitivity analysis, and measurement of heterogeneity in the included studies, registration of reporting protocols, and deficiencies in the study inclusion methods and selection criteria.

Conclusions: While there is potential for robot-assisted pedicle screw placement to offer superior accuracy compared to conventional surgery, the current evidence is limited by methodological shortcomings. The quality of the studies analyzed was insufficient to provide a robust basis for developing clinical guidelines. Further high-quality research is necessary to confirm the benefits and establish clearer recommendations.

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
机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉置入术真的优于传统手术吗?系统回顾和荟萃分析综述。
背景:在过去的二十年里,现代脊柱手术变得越来越智能化和微创化。然而,在脊柱手术中使用机器人是否能提高椎弓根螺钉置入的精确度仍是一个争论不休的话题。本研究旨在评估关于机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉置入术疗效的现有证据的确定性和质量:我们对包括系统综述(SR)和荟萃分析(MA)在内的有关机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉置入术准确性的综述进行了概述。关于系统综述/荟萃分析,我们检索了从开始到2023年4月28日的五个电子数据库。对语言或人群没有限制。使用 PRISMA、AMSTAR-2、ROBIS、Veritas plot 和 GRADE 工具对证据的质量和确定性进行了评估:结果:分析了 15 份 SR/MA。研究结果表明,机器人辅助组椎弓根螺钉置入的准确性并不优于徒手组。所有SR/MA的质量都很低或极低。其主要原因包括数据缺失、缺乏透明度、缺乏敏感性分析、所纳入研究的异质性测量、报告协议的登记以及研究纳入方法和选择标准的缺陷:尽管与传统手术相比,机器人辅助椎弓根螺钉置入术有可能提供更高的准确性,但目前的证据因方法上的缺陷而受到限制。所分析研究的质量不足以为制定临床指南提供有力依据。有必要进一步开展高质量的研究,以确认其益处并提出更明确的建议。
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
Efort Open Reviews
Efort Open Reviews Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: EFORT Open Reviews publishes high-quality instructional review articles across the whole field of orthopaedics and traumatology. Commissioned, peer-reviewed articles from international experts summarize current knowledge and practice in orthopaedics, with the aim of providing systematic coverage of the field. All articles undergo rigorous scientific editing to ensure the highest standards of accuracy and clarity. This continuously published online journal is fully open access and will provide integrated CME. It is an authoritative resource for educating trainees and supports practising orthopaedic surgeons in keeping informed about the latest clinical and scientific advances. One print issue containing a selection of papers from the journal will be published each year to coincide with the EFORT Annual Congress. EFORT Open Reviews is the official journal of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) and is published in partnership with The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.
期刊最新文献
Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in arthroplasty - a narrative review of how many doses are optimal. Biological strategies in rotator cuff repair: a clinical application and molecular background. Diagnostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and albumin-to-globulin ratio for periprosthetic joint infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The role of miRNAs as biomarkers in heterotopic ossification. Fixation of tibial plateau fracture - risk factors for developing infection: a narrative review.
×
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