Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Reduction in complication and revision rates for robotic-guided short-segment lumbar fusion surgery: results of a prospective, multi-center study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies evaluating robotic guidance in lumbar fusion are limited primarily to evaluation of screw accuracy and perioperative complications. This is the first study to evaluate granular differences in short and long-term complication and revision rate profiles between robotic (RG) fluoroscopic (FG) guidance for minimally invasive short-segment lumbar fusions. A retrospective analysis of a prospective, multi-center database was performed. Complications were subdivided into surgical (further subcategorized into adjacent segment disease, new-onset back pain, radiculopathy, motor-deficit, hardware failure, pseudoarthrosis), wound, and medical complications. Complication and revision rates were compared between RG and FG groups cumulatively at 30, 90 days, and 1 year. 374 RG and 111 FG procedures were performed. RG was associated with an 86.25, 83.20, and 69.42% cumulative reduction in complication rate at 30, 90 days, and 1 year, respectively, compared to FG (p < 0.001). At all follow-up points, new-onset radiculopathy and medical complications were most prevalent in both groups. The greatest reductions in complication rates were seen for new-onset back pain (88.13%; p = 0.001) and wound complications (95.05%; p < 0.001) at 30 days, new-onset motor deficits (90.11%; p = 0.004) and wound complications (85.16%; p < 0.001) at 90 days, and new-onset motor deficits (85.16%; p = 0.002), wound (85.16%; p < 0.001), and medical complications (75.72%; p < 0.001) at 1 year. RG was associated with a 92.58% (p = 0.002) reduction in revision rate at 90 days and a 66.08% (p = 0.026) reduction at 1 year. RG was associated with significant reductions in postoperative complication rates at all follow-up time points and significant reductions in revision rates at 90 days and 1 year.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and transparency

All raw data and statistical methodologies are available and the data supports the research claims and complies with field standards.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Martin BI, Mirza SK, Spina N, Spiker WR, Lawrence B, Brodke DS (2019) Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs for degenerative spinal diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015. Spine 44(5):369–376. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yoon JW, Chen RE, Han PK, Si P, Freeman WD, Pirris SM (2017) Technical feasibility and safety of an intraoperative head-up display device during spine instrumentation. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 13(3):e1770. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kolcun JPG, Wang MY (2019) endoscopic treatment of thoracic discitis with robotic access: a case report merging two cutting-edge technologies. World Neurosurg 126:418–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Madhavan K, Kolcun JPG, Chieng LO, Wang MY (2017) Augmented-reality integrated robotics in neurosurgery: are we there yet? Neurosurg Focus 42(5):E3. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.2.FOCUS177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jiang B, Pennington Z, Azad T, Liu A, Ahmed AK, Zygourakis CC, Westbroek EM, Zhu A, Cottrill E, Theodore N (2020) Robot-assisted versus freehand instrumentation in short-segment lumbar fusion: experience with real-time image-guided spinal robot. World Neurosurg 136:e635–e645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Staartjes VE, Klukowska AM, Schroder ML (2018) Pedicle screw revision in robot-guided, navigated, and freehand thoracolumbar instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 116:433-443.e438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Waschke A, Walter J, Duenisch P, Reichart R, Kalff R, Ewald C (2013) CT-navigation versus fluoroscopy-guided placement of pedicle screws at the thoracolumbar spine: single center experience of 4,500 screws. Eur Spine J 22(3):654–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2509-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu MH, Dubey NK, Li YY, Lee CY, Cheng CC, Shi CS, Huang TJ (2017) Comparison of minimally invasive spine surgery using intraoperative computed tomography integrated navigation, fluoroscopy, and conventional open surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis: a prospective registry-based cohort study. Spine J 17(8):1082–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Xiao R, Miller JA, Sabharwal NC, Lubelski D, Alentado VJ, Healy AT, Mroz TE, Benzel EC (2017) Clinical outcomes following spinal fusion using an intraoperative computed tomographic 3D imaging system. J Neurosurg Spine 26(5):628–637. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kochanski RB, Lombardi JM, Laratta JL, Lehman RA, O’Toole JE (2019) Image-guided navigation and robotics in spine surgery. Neurosurgery 84(6):1179–1189. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyy630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schatlo B, Molliqaj G, Cuvinciuc V, Kotowski M, Schaller K, Tessitore E (2014) Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: a matched cohort comparison. J Neurosurg Spine 20(6):636–643. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.SPINE13714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fichtner J, Hofmann N, Rienmuller A, Buchmann N, Gempt J, Kirschke JS, Ringel F, Meyer B, Ryang YM (2018) Revision rate of misplaced pedicle screws of the thoracolumbar spine-comparison of three-dimensional fluoroscopy navigation with freehand placement: a systematic analysis and review of the literature. World Neurosurg 109:e24–e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.091

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Siccoli A, Klukowska AM, Schroder ML, Staartjes VE (2019) A Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative parameters in robot-guided, navigated, and freehand thoracolumbar pedicle screw instrumentation. World Neurosurg 127:576-587.e575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mao G, Gigliotti MJ, Myers D, Yu A, Whiting D (2020) Single-surgeon direct comparison of O-arm neuronavigation versus Mazor X robotic-guided posterior spinal instrumentation. World Neurosurg 137:e278–e285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Solomiichuk V, Fleischhammer J, Molliqaj G, Warda J, Alaid A, von Eckardstein K, Schaller K, Tessitore E, Rohde V, Schatlo B (2017) Robotic versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for metastatic spinal disease: a matched-cohort comparison. Neurosurg Focus 42(5):E13. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.3.FOCUS1710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Keric N, Eum DJ, Afghanyar F, Rachwal-Czyzewicz I, Renovanz M, Conrad J, Wesp DM, Kantelhardt SR, Giese A (2017) Evaluation of surgical strategy of conventional vs. percutaneous robot-assisted spinal trans-pedicular instrumentation in spondylodiscitis. J Robot Surg 11(1):17–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0597-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim HJ, Jung WI, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kang KT, Yeom JS (2017) A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 13(3):e1779. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, Kim HJ (2017) Minimally invasive robotic versus open fluoroscopic-guided spinal instrumented fusions: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 42(6):353–358. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vardiman AB, Wallace DJ, Crawford NR, Riggleman JR, Ahrendtsen LA, Ledonio CG (2019) Pedicle screw accuracy in clinical utilization of minimally invasive navigated robot-assisted spine surgery. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00994-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Schroder ML, Staartjes VE (2017) Revisions for screw malposition and clinical outcomes after robot-guided lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus 42(5):E12. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.3.FOCUS16534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Benech CA, Perez R, Benech F, Greeley SL, Crawford N, Ledonio C (2019) Navigated robotic assistance results in improved screw accuracy and positive clinical outcomes: an evaluation of the first 54 cases. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01007-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Tannous O, Jazini E, Weir TB, Banagan KE, Koh EY, Greg Anderson D, Gelb DE, Ludwig SC (2017) Facet joint violation during percutaneous pedicle screw placement: a comparison of two techniques. Spine 42(15):1189–1194. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Babu R, Park JG, Mehta AI, Shan T, Grossi PM, Brown CR, Richardson WJ, Isaacs RE, Bagley CA, Kuchibhatla M, Gottfried ON (2012) Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Neurosurgery 71(5):962–970. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31826a88c8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones-Quaidoo SM, Djurasovic M, Owens RK 2nd, Carreon LY (2013) Superior articulating facet violation: percutaneous versus open techniques. J Neurosurg Spine 18(6):593–597. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.3.SPINE12829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 35(17):1615–1620. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c70fe3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wong AP, Smith ZA, Nixon AT, Lawton CD, Dahdaleh NS, Wong RH, Auffinger B, Lam S, Song JK, Liu JC, Koski TR, Fessler RG (2015) Intraoperative and perioperative complications in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 513 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 22(5):487–495. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.SPINE14129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Narain AS, Parrish JM, Jenkins NW, Haws BE, Khechen B, Yom KH, Kudaravalli KT, Guntin JA, Singh K (2020) Risk factors for medical and surgical complications after single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Int J Spine Surg 14(2):125–132. https://doi.org/10.14444/7018

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Yao R, Zhou H, Choma TJ, Kwon BK, Street J (2018) Surgical site infection in spine surgery: who is at risk? Glob Spine J 8(4 Suppl):5S-30S. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568218799056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schizas C, Thein E, Kwiatkowski B, Kulik G (2012) Pedicle screw insertion: robotic assistance versus conventional C-arm fluoroscopy. Acta Orthop Belg 78(2):240–245

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Urakov TM, Chang KH, Burks SS, Wang MY (2017) Initial academic experience and learning curve with robotic spine instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus 42(5):E4. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.2.FOCUS175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Parker SL, McGirt MJ, Farber SH, Amin AG, Rick AM, Suk I, Bydon A, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Witham TF (2011) Accuracy of free-hand pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine: analysis of 6816 consecutive screws. Neurosurgery 68(1):170–178. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181fdfaf4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang MY, Lerner J, Lesko J, McGirt MJ (2012) Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 25(6):324–328. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318220be32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang MY, Chang HK, Grossman J (2018) Reduced acute care costs with the ERAS(R) minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 83(4):827–834. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyx400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau D, Mendelhall SK, Aaronson O, Cheng J, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2015) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of revision fusion for lumbar pseudoarthrosis: defining the value of surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(3):101–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318269cc4a

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Berman D, Oren JH, Bendo J, Spivak J (2017) The effect of smoking on spinal fusion. Int J Spine Surg 11:29. https://doi.org/10.14444/4029

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

MISReFRESH received direct funding from Mazor Robotics, Ltd. and Medtronic PLC. This sub-analysis of the MISReFRESH database received funding from Medtronic PLC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by JIL, VK, AJ, CRG, SRS, AC, VH, JL, FZ, PMR, TMS, and MYW. Data analysis was performed by ZS, JIL, VK, and AJ. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JIL, VK, AJ, and MYW. All authors commented on and participated in multiple manuscript revisions, culminating in the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason I. Liounakos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Liounakos: nothing to disclose. Dr. Kumar: nothing to disclose. Dr. Jamshidi: nothing to disclose. Ms. Silman: nothing to disclose. Dr. Good: consultant for Medtronic, Stryker/K2M. Receives royalties from Stryker/K2M. Member of scientific advisory boards for Medtronic, Stryker/K2M, Augmedics. Holds direct stock ownership in Augmedics. Member of board of directors for National Spine Health Foundation. Dr. Schroerlucke: consultant for NuVasive. Receives royalties from NuVasive. Receives research support from Mazor Robotics, Ltd/Medtronic. Dr. Cannestra: consultant for Alphatec, Alliance Spine, Integrity Implants, Spinal Elements, MiRus, NuVasive, RTI, Mazor Robotics Ltd/Medtronic. Receives royalties from Alphatec, Alliance Spine, RTI, Spinal Elements, NuVasive. Receives research funding from NuVasive, Mazor Robotics Ltd/Medtronic. Dr. Hsu: consultant for Medtronic. Receives royalties from Camber Spine, Medicrea. Dr. Lim: consultant for Nexxt Spine, Stryker/K2M. Receives royalties from Globus Medical. Dr. Zahrawi: receives royalties from Spinewave. Dr. Ramirez: consultant for Spine Wave, Captiva Spine, SI Bone. Research support for Mazor Robotics, Ltd/Medtronic. Dr. Sweeney: receives royalties from NuVasive. Receives income from sales of intellectual property from Alpine Spine, LLC. Previously served as a consultant for Mazor Robotics, Ltd. Dr. Wang: consultant for Depuy-Synthes Spine, Spineology, Stryker. Receives royalties from the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, Depuy-Synthes Spine, Springer Publishing, Quality Medical Publishing. Member of speaker’s bureau for Medtronic, Globus Medical. Holds direct stock ownership in Innovative Surgical Devices, Medical Device Partners.

Ethics approval

This retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database (MISReFRESH; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02057744) involving human participants was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of each respective institution involved approved this research investigation.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained for all study subjects at all institutions.

Consent for publication

All participants consented to publication of the research results.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liounakos, J.I., Kumar, V., Jamshidi, A. et al. Reduction in complication and revision rates for robotic-guided short-segment lumbar fusion surgery: results of a prospective, multi-center study. J Robotic Surg 15, 793–802 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01165-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01165-5

Keywords

Navigation