Search

Retrospective multicenter.The aim was to investigate the factors involved in, and their relative contributions to, the overall accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement.Robot-assisted surgery has reportedly resulted in greater accuracy for placement of pedicle screws than conventional methods. There are many potential factors affecting the accuracy of pedicle screws placed with a robot. No study has investigated these factors in a robust way.Radiographic and clinical data of three centers were pooled. Preoperative and postoperative computerized tomographies were obtained by all three centers to assess the accuracy of the placed screws. The primary outcome measured was accuracy of pedicle screws placed with the robot. The authors performed a multivariate regression analysis to determine the significant patient-related and screw-related variables and their relative contribution to the overall accuracy. In addition, an ordinal regression analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of different variables on accuracy of robot-placed screws graded by Gertzbein-Robbins grading system (GRS).The total contribution of all studied variables to overall accuracy variation as measured by offsets between the placed and planned screws was only 18%. Obesity, long constructs, female gender, surgeon, and vertebral levels were among the factors that had small contributions to the different screw offsets. For GRS grades, significant variables were gender (Log odds: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38-0.85), age (Log odds: 0.02, 95% CI: 0.01-0.03), length of constructs (Log odds: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02-0.11), screw diameter (Log odds: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.39-0.71), and length of the screws (Log odds: 0.03, 95% CI: 0.01-0.05). However, these variables too, regardless of their significant association with the accuracy of placed screws, had little contribution to overall variability of accuracy itself (only about 7%).The accuracy of screws placed with robotic assistance, as graded by GRS or measured offsets between planned and placed screw trajectories, is minimally affected by different patient-related or screw-related variables due to the robustness of the robotic navigation system used in this study.Level III.

Robotic assistance with integrated navigation is an area of high interest for improving the accuracy of minimally invasive pedicle screw placement. This study analyzes the accuracy of pedicle screw placement between an attending spine surgeon and a resident by comparing the left and right sides of the first 101 consecutive cases using navigated robotic assistance in a private practice clinical setting. A retrospective, Institutional Review Board-exempt review of the first 106 navigated robot-assisted spine surgery cases was performed. One attending spine surgeon and one resident performed pedicle screw placement consistently on either the left or right side (researchers were blinded). A CT-based Gertzbein and Robbins system (GRS) was used to classify pedicle screw accuracy, with grade A or B considered accurate. There were 630 consecutive lumbosacral pedicle screws placed. Thirty screws (5 patients) were placed without the robot due to surgeon discretion. Of the 600 pedicle screws inserted by navigated robotic guidance (101 patients), only 1.5% (9/600) were repositioned intraoperatively. Based on the GRS CT-based grading of pedicle breach, 98.67% (296/300) of left-side screws were graded A or B, 1.3% (4/300) were graded C, and 0% (0/300) were graded D. For the right-side screws, 97.67% (293/300) were graded A or B, 1.67% (5/300) were graded C, and 0.66% (2/300) were graded D. This study demonstrated a high level of accuracy (based on GRS) with no significant differences between the left- and right-side pedicle screw placements (98.67% vs. 97.67%, respectively) in the clinical use of navigated, robot-assisted surgery.

In the emerging field of robot-assisted spine surgery, the radiographic evaluation of pedicle screw accuracy in clinical application is an area of high interest. This study describes the pedicle screw accuracy of the first 56 consecutive cases in which navigated robotic assistance was used in a private practice clinical setting. A retrospective, Institutional Review Board-exempt review of the first 56 navigated robot-assisted spine surgery cases was performed. Pedicle screw malposition, reposition, and return to operating room (OR) rates were collected. A CT-based Gertzbein and Robbins system (GRS) was used to classify pedicle screw accuracy. In the first 56 robotic cases, 356 total pedicle screws were placed. Eight screws were placed without the robot due to surgeon discretion. Of the 348 pedicle screws inserted by navigated robotic guidance, only 2.6% (9/348) were repositioned, resulting in a 97.4% (339/348) successful screw placement rate. The average age was 64, and 48% were female. Average body mass index was 31 kg/m2. Based on the GRS CT-based grading, 97.7% (340/348) were graded A or B, 1.7% (6/348) screws were graded C, and only 0.6% (2/348) of screws were graded D. Two complications, explantation of interbody and vacuum-assisted wound closure, were reported as requiring a return to the OR, but these were not related to robotic guidance or pedicle screws. This study demonstrated a high level of accuracy (97.7%) in the first 56 cases using navigated, robot-assisted surgery based on the GRS. There were two non-screw-related complications requiring return to the operating room.

Background In the emerging field of robot-assisted spine surgery, radiographic evaluation of pedicle screw accuracy in the surgical setting is of high interest. Advances in medical imaging have improved the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, from fluoroscopy-guided to computer-aided navigation. Methods A retrospective, institutional review board-exempt review of the first 106 navigated robot-assisted spine surgery cases was performed. Radiographic evaluation of preoperative and postoperative computerized tomography (CT) scans were collected. Results In the first 106 cases, 630 lumbosacral pedicle screws were placed. Thirty screws were placed in five patients without the robot because of surgeon discretion. Of the 600 pedicle screws inserted by navigated robotic guidance, only 1.5% (9/600) were repositioned intraoperatively. Conclusion This study demonstrated a high level of accuracy (98.2%) in terms of grade A or B pedicle screw breach scores in the clinical use of navigated, robot-assisted surgery in its first 101 cases.

Objectives To describe the learning curve of pedicle screw placement using robot-assisted spine surgery of an experienced neurosurgeon and 2 supervised neurosurgical fellows. Methods The first 120 cases of robot-assisted spine surgery at our institution were assessed. Patient variables included age, body mass index, and indication for surgery. Intraoperative variables included the vertebral level of screw placement, number of screws placed by each operator, intraoperative blood loss, and operative time. Postoperative variables included length of stay, discharge disposition, 30-day readmissions, wound complications, and hardware revisions. Screw accuracy was determined with image overlay analysis comparing planned screw trajectory on the navigation software with the intraoperative computed tomography scan with final screw placement. Two-dimensional accuracy was determined for the tip of the screw, tail of the screw, and angle at the screw was placed. The supervising physician and first fellow began utilizing the robot concurrently upon its arrival, and the second fellow began using the robot after the system had been in place for 7 months. Results Both experienced surgeon and first fellow displayed a learning curve and achieved statistically significant improvement of accuracy after 30 screws. The second fellow had significantly better accuracy than the experienced surgeon in his first 30 screws. There were no complications from hardware placement in either group. There were no returns to the operating room for hardware issues. Conclusions Robot-assisted spine surgery is a safe, accurate method of pedicle screw instrumentation. Our data show similar learning adaptation rates for the first fellow and the experienced surgeon. Techniques learned by the attending surgeon were immediately transferable to a new learner, who was able to achieve a faster learning curve than both the first fellow and the experienced surgeon.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT As the field of robot-assisted spine surgery continues to progress and grow, radiographic evaluation of pedicle screw accuracy in a surgical setting is of high interest. Advances in medical imaging and technology have improved pedicle screw placement accuracy, from fluoroscope-guided placement to computer-aided navigation. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to assess the pedicle screw accuracy of 341 consecutive cases in which navigated robotic assistance was used in a private practice clinical setting. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective chart review. PATIENT SAMPLE A total of 341 consecutive patients. OUTCOME MEASURES Screw accuracy, screw offset, complications. METHODS A retrospective, Institutional Review Board-exempt review of 341 navigated robot-assisted spine surgery cases was performed at a single private institution. Radiographic evaluation of screw tip and screw tail offset distance and angulation from preoperative plan to actual final placement based on intraoperative computerized tomography (CT) images was analyzed and calculated. Additionally, pedicle screw malposition, reposition and return to operating room (OR) rates were reviewed. A CT-based Gertzbein and Robbins System (GRS) was used to classify pedicle screw accuracy. The GRS system classifies screws with the rating of A or B as accurate, and C, D, or E as inaccurate placement. The accuracy percentage was calculated by dividing the number of accurate screws placed with robotic navigation by the total cohort. RESULTS In the 341 cases analyzed, 1,929 thoracolumbar pedicle screws were placed. Thirty-one screws (6 patients) deviated from robot use due to surgeon discretion. Of the 1,929 pedicle screws inserted by navigated robotic guidance, only .005% (9/1929) were repositioned intraoperatively. The average age was 66.8 years, and 48% of the patients were male. Average body mass index was 29.31 kg/m2. The majority of the surgical diagnoses were degenerative disc disease (248) and adjacent segment disease (72). The average offset from preoperative plan to actual final placement was 1.7±1.3mm from the tip, 1.6±1.0mm from the tail, and 2.0±1.4° of angulation. Based on the GRS CT-based grading, 97.8% (1,886/1,928) screws were graded A or B, 2.0% (40/1,928) screws were graded C, and 0.2% (3/1,928) screws were graded D. A total of three complications that required a return to the OR were reported: interbody removal, deep wound infection, and wound vacuum-assisted closure. None were related to robotic guidance or pedicle screws. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated a high level of accuracy (97.8%) in the clinical use of navigated, robot-assisted surgery in 341 cases. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS ExcelsiusGPS (Globus Medical) (Approved for this indication)

A 63-year-old man presented with progressive lower-extremity paresis over the previous 3 months. He had been unable to support himself to ambulate over the previous 3 weeks. The patient was found to have metastatic renal cell carcinoma to T11. He underwent robotic assisted percutaneous placement of T9–L1 pedicle screws and open T11 laminectomy/debulking of tumor. This approach allowed for decreased blood loss without the need for preoperative embolization. After decompression and placement of the hardware, the patient regained the ability to ambulate on his own.The video can be found here: https://youtu.be/BTFQezhZlB4.

Patients with penetrating carotid injuries above C2 present special challenges to the cerebrovascular surgeon. A subgroup of patients may lack the vascular collaterals necessary to tolerate carotid sacrifice or prolonged ischemia during direct carotid repair. We present a technique of extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) saphenous vein bypass in two patients with high cervical and skull base carotid injuries and poor vascular collaterals. This technique allows preservation of internal carotid flow during the proximal anastomosis. Interruption of cerebral blood flow is limited to the duration required for a distal intracranial anastomosis and is confined to the territory supplied by a single middle cerebral branch. The procedure eliminates systemic anticoagulation, includes trapping of the injured segment of the internal carotid artery, and restores a volume of flow similar to that of the internal carotid artery. It is a valuable adjunct in this specific population of patients with high carotid injuries who cannot tolerate even brief periods of temporary occlusion or in whom clinical urgency precludes an endovascular trial occlusion.