Positioning accuracy and facet joints violation after percutaneous pedicle screws placement with robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided technique: Systematic review and meta-analysis
You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
Media type:
E-Article
Title:
Positioning accuracy and facet joints violation after percutaneous pedicle screws placement with robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided technique: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Description:
<jats:sec id="st1">
<jats:title>Introduction:</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec id="st2">
<jats:title>Material and Methods:</jats:title>
<jats:p>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<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> test, and the I<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> statistic was utilized to estimate the proportion of total variation among the studies. A value exceeding 50% was considered indicative of substantial heterogeneity.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec id="st3">
<jats:title>Results:</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec id="st4">
<jats:title>Discussion:</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec id="st5">
<jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>