Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Guidance in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: a Review of Recent Literature and Commentary on a Developing Technology

  • Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (W Hsu, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) and robotic technology are growing in popularity and are increasing utilized in combination. The purpose of this review is to identify the current successes, potential drawbacks, and future directions of robotic guidance for MIS compared to traditional techniques.

Recent Findings

Recent literature highlights successful incorporation of robotic guidance in MIS as a consistently accurate method for pedicle screw placement. With a short learning curve and low complication rates, robot guidance may also reduce the use of fluoroscopy, operative time, and length of hospital stay.

Summary

Recent literature suggests that incorporating robotic guidance in MIS improves the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion and may have added benefits both intra- and postoperatively for the patient and provider. Future research should focus on direct comparison between MIS with and without robotic guidance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pilecki MA, McGuire BB, Jain U, Kim JYS, Nadler RB. National multi-institutional comparison of 30-day postoperative complication and readmission rates between open Retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using NSQIP. J Endourol. 2014;28(4):430–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Greenberg H. Robotic surgery: growing sales, but growing concerns [internet]. 2013 [cited 2019 Jan 3]. Available from: https://www.cnbc.com/id/100564517. Accessed 22 Dec 2018.

  3. Fan G, Han R, Zhang H, He S, Chen Z. Worldwide research productivity in the field of minimally invasive spine surgery: a 20-year survey of publication activities. Spine. 2017;42(22):1717–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lu VM, Kerezoudis P, Gilder HE, McCutcheon BA, Phan K, Bydon M. Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine. 2017;42(3):E177–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR. Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop. 2014;472(6):1727–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu M-H, Dubey NK, Li Y-Y, Lee C-Y, Cheng C-C, Shi C-S, et al. 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. 2017;17(8):1082–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Overley SC, Cho SK, Mehta AI, Arnold PM. Navigation and robotics in spinal surgery: where are we now? Neurosurgery. 2017;80(3S):S86–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nathoo N, Cavuşoğlu MC, Vogelbaum MA, Barnett GH. In touch with robotics: neurosurgery for the future. Neurosurgery. 2005;56(3):421–33 discussion 421-433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine. 1990;15(1):11–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fan Y, Du JP, Liu JJ, Zhang JN, Qiao HH, Liu SC, et al. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement comparing robot-assisted technology and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided method in spine surgery: an updated meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(22):e10970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van Dijk JD, van den Ende RPJ, Stramigioli S, Köchling M, Höss N. Clinical pedicle screw accuracy and deviation from planning in robot-guided spine surgery: robot-guided pedicle screw accuracy. Spine. 2015;40(17):E986–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Molliqaj G, Schatlo B, Alaid A, Solomiichuk V, Rohde V, Schaller K, et al. Accuracy of robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fan Y, Du J, Zhang J, Liu S, Xue X, Huang Y, et al. Comparison of accuracy of pedicle screw insertion among 4 guided technologies in spine surgery. Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:5960–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim H-J, Jung W-I, Chang B-S, Lee C-K, Kang K-T, Yeom JS. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(3).

  15. Hyun S-J, Kim K-J, Jahng T-A, Kim H-J. Minimally invasive robotic versus open fluoroscopic-guided spinal instrumented fusions: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2017;42(6):353–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yu L, Chen X, Margalit A, Peng H, Qiu G, Qian W. Robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery - a systematic review and a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int J Med Robot. 2018;14(3):e1892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ringel F, Stüer C, Reinke A, Preuss A, Behr M, Auer F, et al. Accuracy of robot-assisted placement of lumbar and sacral pedicle screws: a prospective randomized comparison to conventional freehand screw implantation. Spine. 2012;37(8):E496–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim H-J, Lee SH, Chang B-S, Lee C-K, Lim TO, Hoo LP, et al. Monitoring the quality of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine by using a cumulative summation test. Spine. 2015;40(2):87–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Menger RP, Savardekar AR, Farokhi F, Sin A. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the integration of robotic spine technology in spine surgery. Neurospine. 2018;15(3):216–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Keric N, Doenitz C, Haj A, Rachwal-Czyzewicz I, Renovanz M, Wesp DMA, et al. Evaluation of robot-guided minimally invasive implantation of 2067 pedicle screws. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schröder ML, Staartjes VE. Revisions for screw malposition and clinical outcomes after robot-guided lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim H-J, Kang K-T, Chun H-J, Hwang JS, Chang B-S, Lee C-K, et al. Comparative study of 1-year clinical and radiological outcomes using robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation and freehand technique in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Int J Med Robot. 2018;14(4):e1917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Park SM, Kim HJ, Lee SY, Chang BS, Lee CK, Yeom JS. Radiographic and clinical outcomes of robot-assisted posterior pedicle screw fixation: two-year results from a randomized controlled trial. Yonsei Med J. 2018;59(3):438–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Urakov TM, Chang KH-K, Burks SS, Wang MY. Initial academic experience and learning curve with robotic spine instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hu X, Lieberman IH. What is the learning curve for robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement in spine surgery? Clin Orthop. 2014;472(6):1839–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Macke JJ, Woo R, Varich L. Accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the pediatric population. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(2):145–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Solomiichuk V, Fleischhammer J, Molliqaj G, Warda J, Alaid A, von Eckardstein K, et al. Robotic versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for metastatic spinal disease: a matched-cohort comparison. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Keric N, Eum DJ, Afghanyar F, Rachwal-Czyzewicz I, Renovanz M, Conrad J, et al. Evaluation of surgical strategy of conventional vs. percutaneous robot-assisted spinal trans-pedicular instrumentation in spondylodiscitis. J Robot Surg. 2017;11(1):17–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Alaid A, von Eckardstein K, Smoll NR, Solomiichuk V, Rohde V, Martinez R, et al. Robot guidance for percutaneous minimally invasive placement of pedicle screws for pyogenic spondylodiscitis is associated with lower rates of wound breakdown compared to conventional fluoroscopy-guided instrumentation. Neurosurg Rev. 2018;41(2):489–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Roser F, Tatagiba M, Maier G. Spinal robotics: current applications and future perspectives. Neurosurgery. 2013;72(Suppl 1):12–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Fifth Floor, 925 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA

    Justin D. Stull, John J. Mangan, Alexander R. Vaccaro & Gregory D. Schroeder

  2. The Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Alexander R. Vaccaro & Gregory D. Schroeder

Authors
  1. Justin D. Stull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John J. Mangan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander R. Vaccaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gregory D. Schroeder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin D. Stull.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Justin Stull and John Mangan declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Gregory Schroeder has the following disclosures: Advance Medical: Paid consultant AOSpine: Other financial or material support Medtronic: Other financial or material support Medtronic Sofamor Danek: Research support Stryker: Paid consultant Wolters Kluwer Health - Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Editorial or governing board Zimmer: Paid consultant.

Alex Vaccaro has the following disclosures: Advanced Spinal Intellectual Properties: Stock or stock Options Aesculap: IP royalties Atlas Spine: IP royalties; Paid consultant Avaz Surgical: Stock or stock Options Bonovo Orthopedics: Stock or stock Options Clinical Spine Surgery: Editorial or governing board Computational Biodynamics: Stock or stock Options Cytonics: Stock or stock Options DePuy, a Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid consultant Dimension Orthotics LLC: Stock or stock Options Electrocore: Stock or stock Options Elsevier: Publishing royalties, financial or material support Flagship Surgical: Stock or stock Options FlowPharma: Stock or stock Options Franklin Bioscience: Stock or stock Options Gamma Spine: Stock or stock Options Gerson Lehrman Group: Paid consultant Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Stock or stock Options Guidepoint Global: Paid consultant Innovative Surgical Design: Paid consultant; Stock or stock Options Insight Therapeutics: Stock or stock Options Jaypee: Publishing royalties, financial or material support Medtronic: IP royalties; Paid consultant none: Other financial or material support Nuvasive: Paid consultant; Stock or stock Options Orthobullets: Paid consultant Paradigm Spine: Stock or stock Options Parvizi Surgical Innovations: Stock or stock Options Prime Surgeons: Stock or stock Options Progressive Spinal Technologies: Stock or stock Options Replication Medica: Stock or stock Options Spine Journal: Editorial or governing board Spine Medica: Stock or stock Options SpineWave: IP royalties; Paid consultant Spinology: Stock or stock Options Stout Medical: Paid consultant; Stock or stock Options Stryker: IP royalties; Paid consultant Taylor Franics/Hodder & Stoughton: Publishing royalties, financial or material support Thieme: Publishing royalties, financial or material support Vertiflex: Stock or stock Options.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stull, J.D., Mangan, J.J., Vaccaro, A.R. et al. Robotic Guidance in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: a Review of Recent Literature and Commentary on a Developing Technology. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 12, 245–251 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09558-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09558-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation