Original ArticleRobot-Assisted Versus Fluoroscopy-Assisted Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Surgery: A Matched-Cohort Comparison
Introduction
In 2009, Santoni et al.1 reported a new trajectory for pedicle screw insertion for lumbar fixation, the cortical bone trajectory (CBT), from medially to laterally and from cranially to caudally. Their study demonstrated that a 30% increase in failure load of the CBT screw in uniaxial pullout compared with the traditional pedicle screw (PS).1 Recently, both cadaveric2, 3 and clinical4, 5 studies have shown that the CBT technique is a better alternative option for lumbar fixation, especially for patients with osteoporosis and obesity.6 Generally, the indications for CBT and PS were similar in most studies. Therefore, the novel technique was expected to replace traditional lumbar fixation strategies. However, during CBT screw insertion, several risks should be considered,7, 8 including the occurrence of insertion point or pedicle fractures owing to an immoderate screw diameter; nerve root injury due to an insufficient cephalad trajectory; and greater radiation exposure due to intraoperative multiplanar fluoroscopy. Hence, a thorough understanding of the anatomy, accurate surgical procedures, and reliable protection are essential to decrease these risks.
A new commercially available robotic system called TiRobot (TINAVI Medical Technologies Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) was developed to assist surgeons with spinal screw placement. This system could help doctors to plan the screw trajectories, optimal positioning, and the dimensions of implants. Subsequently, the surgeon will be able to perform the drilling and screw insertion manually.
The introduction of robots into spinal surgery could maximize the potential of the CBT approach by overcoming the shortcomings of fluoroscopy-assisted instrumentation. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have yet compared the robot-assisted approach with the conventional technique. The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted CBT screw instrumentation.
Section snippets
Patients
The present retrospective medical record review included patients who had undergone CBT screw instrumentation after developing spinal disease from June 2015 to March 2018. During the study period, 20 patients had undergone surgery with the aid of the TiRobot system and 38 patients with the fluoroscopy-assisted technique. All patients underwent cortical bone trajectory surgery performed by the same team of experienced surgeons. The decision to operate using robotic assistance or the conventional
Baseline Characteristics
We organized and used a total of 86 CBT screws for the RG and 145 screws for the fluoroscopy group (FG). The mean patient age and BMI in the RG were significantly greater than those in the FG (P < 0.01). The other baseline characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups (Table 1).
Primary Outcome
A detailed listing of the CBT screw accuracy grades is provided in Table 2. Overall, in the RG, a perfect trajectory (grade A) was observed in 87.2% of 86 screws. The remaining screws were graded B (n = 7; 8.1%)
Advances in CBT Screw Technique and Orthopedic Surgical Robots
The CBT screw technique is a novel lumbar fixation method. Several biomechanical studies2, 4, 5 have demonstrated favorable mechanical properties compared with PS because CBT screws are inserted in a region of high bone density. In clinical studies,11 the CBT was considered to be more minimally invasive than PS placement. CBT screw insertion through a caudomedial insertion point enables less-invasive posterior lumbar fixation by limiting dissection of the facet joints and reducing muscle
Conclusions
Robot-assisted screw placement is a more accurate and safe alternative to the fluoroscopy-assisted approach for lumbar spinal cortical bone trajectory instrumentation.
References (25)
- et al.
Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws
Spine J
(2009) - et al.
Effect of physiological loads on cortical and traditional pedicle screw fixation
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
(2014) - et al.
Biomechanical fixation properties of cortical versus transpedicular screws in the osteoporotic lumbar spine: an in vitro human cadaveric model
J Neurosurg Spine
(2016) - et al.
Biomechanics of lumbar cortical screw-rod fixation versus pedicle screw-rod fixation with and without interbody support
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
(2013) - et al.
In vivo analysis of insertional torque during pedicle screwing using cortical bone trajectory technique
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
(2014) - et al.
Lumbar pedicle cortical bone trajectory screw
Chin Med J
(2014) - et al.
Morphometric measurement of cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screw insertion using computed tomography
J Spinal Disord Tech
(2013) - et al.
Midline lumbar fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw
Neurol Med Chir
(2014) - et al.
Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
(1990) - et al.
Lumbar spine superior-level facet joint violations: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw insertion using intraoperative 3-dimensional computer-assisted navigation
Chin Med J (Engl)
(2014)
Review of cortical bone trajectory: evidence of a new technique
Asian Spine J
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion using traditional pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study
J Neurosurg Spine
Cited by (88)
Reducing residual forces in spinal fusion using a custom-built rod bending machine
2024, Computer Methods and Programs in BiomedicinePedicle drilling force control of a robotic surgical system via spine-soft tissue coupling model and parameters optimization
2024, Computers in Biology and MedicineRisk Factors for Medial Breach During Robotic-Assisted Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Insertion
2024, World NeurosurgeryNew technique and case report: Robot-assisted intralaminar screw fixation of spondylolysis in an adolescent
2023, North American Spine Society JournalRobotics and navigation in spine surgery: A narrative review
2023, Journal of Orthopaedics
Conflict of interest statement: The present study was supported by the National Key Development Program of Digital Medical Equipment Research and Development Special Funding (grant 2016YFC0105800) and the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (grant 2015AA043201).