Clinical and radiographic comparison of robot-assisted single-position versus traditional dual-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of neurosurgery. Spine Pub Date : 2025-01-17 DOI:10.3171/2024.10.SPINE24808
Ting Li, Wenao Liao, Jiang Hu, Wei Zhang, Yang Yu, Fei Wang, Xilin Liu
{"title":"Clinical and radiographic comparison of robot-assisted single-position versus traditional dual-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion.","authors":"Ting Li, Wenao Liao, Jiang Hu, Wei Zhang, Yang Yu, Fei Wang, Xilin Liu","doi":"10.3171/2024.10.SPINE24808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The potential of robot-assisted (RA) single-position (SP) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) warrants further investigation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of RA-SP-LLIF in improving both clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 59 patients underwent either RA-SP-LLIF (n = 31 cases) or traditional LLIF (n = 28 cases). Surgical parameters including operative duration, estimated blood loss, and fluoroscopy duration were recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Radiographic parameters were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative and last follow-up times, but both groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS scores. Similarly, ODI and SF-36 scores showed comparable improvements. Radiographic parameters did not significantly differ between the groups preoperatively, postoperatively, and at last follow-up (p > 0.05). Neither group showed significant improvements in pelvic tilt and sacral slope parameters compared to baseline postoperatively and at last follow-up (p > 0.05). However, the RA-SP-LLIF group exhibited significantly greater improvements in lumbar lordosis (LL; p < 0.01), segmental lordosis (SL; p < 0.01), and pelvic incidence-LL mismatch (PI-LL; p < 0.01) immediately postoperatively compared to baseline, although these differences were not significant at subsequent evaluations. Similarly, the traditional LLIF group improved the LL, SL, and PI-LL parameters postoperatively. Importantly, there was no statistically significant difference in the Bridwell grade and complications between the two groups (p = 0.83 and p = 0.88, respectively). However, the RA-SP-LLIF group had significantly shorter operative and fluoroscopy durations compared to the traditional LLIF group (p = 0.04 and p < 0.01, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both RA-SP-LLIF and traditional LLIF surgeries achieved satisfactory lordotic correction. However, RA-SP-LLIF surgery demonstrated shorter operative and fluoroscopy times compared to traditional LLIF surgery. Therefore, RA-SP-LLIF is a promising technique for enhancing surgical efficiency, safety, and precision in lumbar spinal fusion procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.10.SPINE24808","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

Abstract

Objective: The potential of robot-assisted (RA) single-position (SP) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) warrants further investigation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of RA-SP-LLIF in improving both clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery.

Methods: A total of 59 patients underwent either RA-SP-LLIF (n = 31 cases) or traditional LLIF (n = 28 cases). Surgical parameters including operative duration, estimated blood loss, and fluoroscopy duration were recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Radiographic parameters were also evaluated.

Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative and last follow-up times, but both groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS scores. Similarly, ODI and SF-36 scores showed comparable improvements. Radiographic parameters did not significantly differ between the groups preoperatively, postoperatively, and at last follow-up (p > 0.05). Neither group showed significant improvements in pelvic tilt and sacral slope parameters compared to baseline postoperatively and at last follow-up (p > 0.05). However, the RA-SP-LLIF group exhibited significantly greater improvements in lumbar lordosis (LL; p < 0.01), segmental lordosis (SL; p < 0.01), and pelvic incidence-LL mismatch (PI-LL; p < 0.01) immediately postoperatively compared to baseline, although these differences were not significant at subsequent evaluations. Similarly, the traditional LLIF group improved the LL, SL, and PI-LL parameters postoperatively. Importantly, there was no statistically significant difference in the Bridwell grade and complications between the two groups (p = 0.83 and p = 0.88, respectively). However, the RA-SP-LLIF group had significantly shorter operative and fluoroscopy durations compared to the traditional LLIF group (p = 0.04 and p < 0.01, respectively).

Conclusions: Both RA-SP-LLIF and traditional LLIF surgeries achieved satisfactory lordotic correction. However, RA-SP-LLIF surgery demonstrated shorter operative and fluoroscopy times compared to traditional LLIF surgery. Therefore, RA-SP-LLIF is a promising technique for enhancing surgical efficiency, safety, and precision in lumbar spinal fusion procedures.

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
机器人辅助单体位与传统双体位腰椎椎间融合术的临床和影像学比较。
目的:机器人辅助(RA)单体位(SP)侧位腰椎椎体间融合(LLIF)的潜力值得进一步研究。本研究旨在评估RA-SP-LLIF在改善腰椎融合手术患者临床和影像学预后方面的疗效。方法:59例患者分别行RA-SP-LLIF(31例)和传统LLIF(28例)。记录手术参数,包括手术时间、估计出血量和透视时间。临床结果采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估背部和腿部疼痛,Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和36项简短健康调查(SF-36)。影像学参数也进行了评估。结果:两组患者术后和末次随访时间差异无统计学意义,但VAS评分均有显著改善。同样,ODI和SF-36得分也显示出类似的改善。两组术前、术后及最后随访时影像学参数差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。两组患者术后及最后随访时骨盆倾斜和骶骨坡度参数均无明显改善(p < 0.05)。然而,RA-SP-LLIF组在腰椎前凸(LL;p < 0.01),节段性前凸(SL;p < 0.01),骨盆发病率- ll不匹配(PI-LL;P < 0.01),尽管这些差异在随后的评估中并不显著。同样,传统LLIF组术后改善了LL、SL和PI-LL参数。重要的是,两组在Bridwell分级和并发症方面差异无统计学意义(p = 0.83和p = 0.88)。然而,与传统LLIF组相比,RA-SP-LLIF组的手术时间和透视时间明显缩短(p = 0.04和p < 0.01)。结论:RA-SP-LLIF和传统LLIF手术均获得满意的前凸矫正效果。然而,与传统的LLIF手术相比,RA-SP-LLIF手术显示出更短的手术和透视时间。因此,RA-SP-LLIF是一种很有前途的技术,可以提高腰椎融合术的手术效率、安全性和准确性。
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
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.
期刊最新文献
Clinical and radiographic comparison of robot-assisted single-position versus traditional dual-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Impact of pedicle screw accuracy on clinical outcomes after 1- or 2-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Awake, endoscopic lumbar interbody spinal fusion: 10 years of experience with the first 400 cases. Patient-reported outcome trajectories the first 24 months after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a Quality Outcomes Database study. The impact of lower thoracic versus upper lumbar upper instrumented vertebra in minimally invasive correction of adult spinal deformity.
×
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