Study Design Retrospective. Objectives To report and compare the application of robotic-assisted navigation with an O-arm or three-dimensional (3D) C-arm-assisted pedicle screw insertion in scoliosis surgery, and compare with free-hand technique. Methods One hundred and forty-four scoliosis patients were included in this study. Ninety-two patients underwent robotic-assisted pedicle screw insertion (Group A), and 52 patients underwent freehand fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion (Group B). Group A was further divided into Subgroup AI (n = 48; robotic-assisted navigation with an O-arm) and Subgroup AII (n = 44; robotic-assisted navigation with a 3D C-arm). The evaluated clinical outcomes were operation time, blood loss, radiation exposure, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications. The clinical outcomes, coronal and sagittal scoliosis parameters and the accuracy of the pedicle screw placement were assessed. Results There were no significant differences in blood loss and postoperative hospital stay between Groups A and B ( P = .406, P = .138, respectively). Radiation exposure for patients in Group A (Subgroups AI or AII) was higher than that in Group B ( P < .005), and Subgroup AI had higher patient radiation exposure compared with Subgroup AII ( P < .005). The operation time in Subgroup AII was significantly longer than that in Subgroup AI and Group B ( P = .016, P = .032, respectively). The proportion of clinically acceptable screws was higher in Group A (Subgroups AI or AII) compared with Group B ( P < .005). Conclusions Robotic-assisted navigation with an O-arm or 3D C-arm effectively increased the accuracy and safety in scoliosis surgery. Compared with robotic-assisted navigation with a 3D C-arm, robotic-assisted navigation with an O-arm was more efficient intraoperatively.
Objective Although Caspar cervical retractor system (CCRS) is commonly utilized in anterior cervical decompression and fixation (ACDF), most urban hospitals still use both traditional S retractor and CCRS in conventional anterior cervical surgeries. Related data to evaluate the effect are required to be reported. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy between using the traditional cervical S retractor and CCRS in anterior cervical decompression and fixation ACDF. Methods The retrospective study that total 360 patients received ACDF using different retractors (traditional S retractor or CCRS) were enrolled in this study from January 2010 to January 2020. Width change rate of cervical prevertebral soft tissue, throat symptoms, and subjective experiences of the operating surgeons were evaluated by t‐test or analysis of variance (ANOVA) respectively. Results The width change rate of prevertebral soft tissue was significantly higher in the S retractor group than that of the CCRS group both in single segment group (40.9% vs 20.8%, P < 0.05) and double segments group (45.8% vs 25.2%; p < 0.05). In the three segments group, the width change rate of prevertebral soft tissue was higher in the S retractor group than that of the CCRS group, but with no statistical significance (27.3% vs 23.6%; P > 0.05). The incidence rates of dysphagia, dyspnea, and throat discomfort in the traditional S retractor group were significantly higher compared to the CCRS group (P < 0.05), while satisfactory rate of surgeon was higher in the CCRS group (P < 0.05). However, there was no correlation between anterior soft tissue rate and operative time (P > 0.05), as well as the width change rate of anterior soft tissue and the DNRS score (P > 0.05). Conclusion CCRS was superior compared to the traditional S retractor in reducing the postoperative complications and the postoperative fatigue of surgeon. Meanwhile, the width change rate of prevertebral soft tissue was not related to operative time and DNRS score.
Objective. A magnetic resonance neurography (MRN) study was conducted to assess the neurological safety of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar intervertebral fusion (endo-TLIF). Materials and Methods. A total of 56 healthy volunteers (29 men, 27 women; average age, 44 yr; age range, 21-60 yr) were included in the study. Coronal MRN images were collected from L2/L3 to L5/S1. The working triangle, modified working zone, and safest working zone areas, as well as the vertical and horizontal safe operation diameters, were measured. Linear regression analyses were conducted to explore the correlations between general characteristics (sex, age, height, body mass index) and the measured radiographic indicators. Results. MRN can effectively evaluate the operation zone of endo-TLIF. The safest working zone, modified working zone, and working triangle areas were largest at L4/L5 (92.4 ± 23.4, 136 ± 35.6, and 197 ± 41.7 mm 2 , respectively) and smallest at L2/L3 (45.5 ± 12.9, 68.1 ± 19.5, and 92.6 ± 24.4 mm 2 , respectively). The vertical safe operation diameter was large at L4/L5 and L2/L3 (5.34 ± 0.8 and 5.42 ± 0.9 mm, respectively) and smallest at L5/S1 (2.94 ± 0.9 mm). The horizontal safe operation diameter was large at L4/L5 (7.28 ± 1.2 mm) and smaller at L5/S1 and L2/L3 (4.28 ± 1.0 and 4.77 ± 0.8 mm, respectively). Conclusions. L4/L5 has the lowest risk of nerve injury, and may be the safest level for beginners initiating endo-TLIF in their practice. We recommend that coronal MRN is routinely performed before endo-TLIF to minimize the risk of neurological injury.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.