OBJECTIVEThe quest to improve the safety and accuracy and decrease the invasiveness of pedicle screw placement in spine surgery has led to a markedly increased interest in robotic technology. The SpineAssist from Mazor is one of the most widely distributed robotic systems. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of robot-guided and conventional freehand fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgery.METHODSThis study is a retrospective series of 169 patients (83 women [49%]) who underwent placement of pedicle screw instrumentation from 2007 to 2015 in 2 reference centers. Pathological entities included degenerative disorders, tumors, and traumatic cases. In the robot-assisted cohort (98 patients, 439 screws), pedicle screws were inserted with robotic assistance. In the freehand fluoroscopy-guided cohort (71 patients, 441 screws), screws were inserted using anatomical landmarks and lateral fluoroscopic guidance. Patients treated before 2009 were included in the fluoroscopy cohort, whereas those treated since mid-2009 (when the robot was acquired) were included in the robot cohort. Since then, the decision to operate using robotic assistance or conventional freehand technique has been based on surgeon preference and logistics. The accuracy of screw placement was assessed based on the Gertzbein-Robbins scale by a neuroradiologist blinded to treatment group. The radiological slice with the largest visible deviation from the pedicle was chosen for grading. A pedicle breach of 2 mm or less was deemed acceptable (Grades A and B) while deviations greater than 2 mm (Grades C, D, and E) were classified as misplacements.RESULTSIn the robot-assisted cohort, a perfect trajectory (Grade A) was observed for 366 screws (83.4%). The remaining screws were Grades B (n = 44 [10%]), C (n = 15 [3.4%]), D (n = 8 [1.8%]), and E (n = 6 [1.4%]). In the fluoroscopy-guided group, a completely intrapedicular course graded as A was found in 76% (n = 335). The remaining screws were Grades B (n = 57 [12.9%]), C (n = 29 [6.6%]), D (n = 12 [2.7%]), and E (n = 8 [1.8%]). The proportion of non-misplaced screws (corresponding to Gertzbein-Robbins Grades A and B) was higher in the robot-assisted group (93.4%) than the freehand fluoroscopy group (88.9%) (p = 0.005).CONCLUSIONSThe authors’ retrospective case review found that robot-guided pedicle screw placement is a safe, useful, and potentially more accurate alternative to the conventional freehand technique for the placement of thoracolumbar spinal instrumentation.

OBJECTIVERobot-guided pedicle screw placement is an established technique for the placement of pedicle screws. However, most studies have focused on degenerative disease. In this paper, the authors focus on metastatic spinal disease, which is associated with osteolysis. The associated lack of dense bone may potentially affect the automatic recognition accuracy of radiography-based surgical assistance systems. The aim of the present study is to compare the accuracy of the SpineAssist robot system with conventional fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement for thoracolumbar metastatic spinal disease.METHODSSeventy patients with metastatic spinal disease who required instrumentation were included in this retrospective matched-cohort study. All 70 patients underwent surgery performed by the same team of experienced surgeons. The decision to use robot-assisted or fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement was based the availability of the robot system. In patients who underwent surgery with robot guidance, pedicle screws were inserted after preoperative planning and intraoperative fluoroscopic matching. In the “conventional” group, anatomical landmarks and anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopy guided placement of the pedicle screws. The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of screw placement on the Gertzbein-Robbins scale. Grades A and B (< 2-mm pedicle breach) were considered clinically acceptable, and all other grades indicated misplacement. Secondary outcome measures included an intergroup comparison of direction of screw misplacement, surgical site infection, and radiation exposure.RESULTSA total of 406 screws were placed at 206 levels. Sixty-one (29.6%) surgically treated levels were in the upper thoracic spine (T1–6), 74 (35.9%) were in the lower thoracic spine, and the remaining 71 (34.4%) were in the lumbosacral region. In the robot-assisted group (Group I; n = 35, 192 screws), trajectories were Grade A or B in 162 (84.4%) of screws. The misplacement rate was 15.6% (30 of 192 screws). In the conventional group (Group II; n = 35, 214 screws), 83.6% (179 of 214) of screw trajectories were acceptable, with a misplacement rate of 16.4% (35 of 214). There was no difference in screw accuracy between the groups (chi-square, 2-tailed Fisher’s exact, p = 0.89). One screw misplacement in the fluoroscopy group required a second surgery (0.5%), but no revisions were required in the robot group. There was no difference in surgical site infections between the 2 groups (Group I, 5 patients [14.3%]; Group II, 8 patients [22.9%]) or in the duration of surgery between the 2 groups (Group I, 226.1 ± 78.8 minutes; Group II, 264.1 ± 124.3 minutes; p = 0.13). There was also no difference in radiation time between the groups (Group I, 138.2 ± 73.0 seconds; Group II, 126.5 ± 95.6 seconds; p = 0.61), but the radiation intensity was higher in the robot group (Group I, 2.8 ± 0.2 mAs; Group II, 2.0 ± 0.6 mAs; p < 0.01).CONCLUSIONSPedicle screw placement for metastatic disease in the thoracolumbar spine can be performed effectively and safely using robot-guided assistance. Based on this retrospective analysis, accuracy, radiation time, and postoperative infection rates are comparable to those of the conventional technique.

A major peak in screw inaccuracies occurred between cases 10 and 20, and a second, smaller one at about 40 surgeries. One potential explanation could be a transition from decreased supervision (unskilled but aware) to increased confidence of a surgeon (unskilled but unaware) who adopts this new technique prior to mastering it (skilled). We therefore advocate ensuring competent supervision for new surgeons at least during the first 25 procedures of robotic spine surgery to optimise the accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screws.

Postoperative wound healing can pose a problem in patients undergoing instrumented surgery for pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Robotic guidance allows the minimally invasive placement of pedicle screws in the thoracolumbar spine. We assessed whether using this technique to perform minimally invasive surgery had an impact on wound healing in patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis when compared to conventional open fluoroscopy-guided surgery. We reviewed charts of 206 consecutive patients who underwent instrumentation for pyogenic spondylodiscitis. The need for wound revision was the primary outcome measure. Patient variables and comorbidities as well as surgical technique (robotic versus fluoroscopy-guided) were analyzed. We also compared fluoroscopy times between the two groups. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of wound breakdown. A total of 206 patients underwent surgery for spondylodiscitis. Robotic surgical assistance was used for percutaneous instrumentation in 47.6% of cases (n = 98). Wound healing problems requiring revision occurred in 30 out of 206 patients (14.6%). Univariate analysis revealed a potential association of wound breakdown with (1) robotic technique, (2) age > 70 years, and (3) the presence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. After multivariate correction however, only robotic technique retained significance with an odds ratio of 0.39 (CI 95% 0.16-0.94; p = 0.035). Wound revision was required in eight out of 98 patients (8.1%) in the robot group and 22/108 (20%) in the conventional surgery group. Fluoroscopy times were significantly lower in the robot group with a mean of 123 ± 86 s in comparison with a mean of 157 ± 99 s in the conventional group (p = 0.014). While initially designed to improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, robot-assisted minimally invasive technique had a tangible effect on both radiation exposure and the rate of wound breakdown in patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis in our large single-center study.

No abstract

Dilated VRSs can cause a variety of neurological deficits depending on their size and location. Therefore, patients harboring dilated VRS should undergo early close inspection and in case of progressive neurological deficits, an operative therapy should be done; as valve mechanisms can cause a reduction of size when brain scans are conducted and later lead to occurrence of severe neurological deficits during phase of dilation.

Purpose The purpose of this report is to describe the clinical course of a patient who had a primary complaint of isolated right lateral thigh pain 3 years prior that was nonresponsive to conservative measures. Hypoesthesia in the lateral side of the right forearm, deltoid and biceps, as well as triceps paresis, was also diagnosed. Results Immediately after surgery, the patient reported substantial improvement in his right thigh symptoms. The signs and symptoms associated with the right C6 and C7 radiculopathy did improve. Conclusion Although the presentation described in this case is somewhat unique, the eventual myelopathic signs and symptoms were not. It was these myelopathic signs and symptoms that led to cervical magnetic resonance imaging, the diagnosis of cervical cord compressive myelopathy, and surgical management.

Postoperative wound healing can pose a problem in patients undergoing instrumented surgery for pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Robotic guidance allows the minimally invasive placement of pedicle screws in the thoracolumbar spine. We assessed whether using this technique to perform minimally invasive surgery had an impact on wound healing in patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis when compared to conventional open fluoroscopy-guided surgery. We reviewed charts of 206 consecutive patients who underwent instrumentation for pyogenic spondylodiscitis. The need for wound revision was the primary outcome measure. Patient variables and comorbidities as well as surgical technique (robotic versus fluoroscopy-guided) were analyzed. We also compared fluoroscopy times between the two groups. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of wound breakdown. A total of 206 patients underwent surgery for spondylodiscitis. Robotic surgical assistance was used for percutaneous instrumentation in 47.6% of cases (n = 98). Wound healing problems requiring revision occurred in 30 out of 206 patients (14.6%). Univariate analysis revealed a potential association of wound breakdown with (1) robotic technique, (2) age > 70 years, and (3) the presence of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus. After multivariate correction however, only robotic technique retained significance with an odds ratio of 0.39 (CI 95% 0.16-0.94; p = 0.035). Wound revision was required in eight out of 98 patients (8.1%) in the robot group and 22/108 (20%) in the conventional surgery group. Fluoroscopy times were significantly lower in the robot group with a mean of 123 ± 86 s in comparison with a mean of 157 ± 99 s in the conventional group (p = 0.014). While initially designed to improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, robot-assisted minimally invasive technique had a tangible effect on both radiation exposure and the rate of w o u n d b r e a k d o w n i n p a t i e n t s w i t h p y o g e n i c spondylodiscitis in our large single-center study.