Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement

Sven Rainer Kantelhardt, Ramon Martinez, Stefan Baerwinkel, Ralf Burger, Alf Giese, Veit Rohde, Sven Rainer Kantelhardt, Ramon Martinez, Stefan Baerwinkel, Ralf Burger, Alf Giese, Veit Rohde

Abstract

Robotic-guided and percutaneous pedicle screw placement are emerging technologies. We here report a retrospective cohort analysis comparing conventional open to open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided pedicle screw placement. 112 patient records and CT scans were analyzed concerning the intraoperative and perioperative course. 35 patients underwent percutaneous, 20 open robotic-guided and 57 open conventional pedicle screw placement. 94.5% of robot-assisted and 91.4% of conventionally placed screws were found to be accurate. Percutaneous robotic and open robotic-guided subgroups did not differ obviously. Average X-ray exposure per screw was 34 s in robotic-guided compared to 77 s in conventional cases. Subgroup analysis indicates that percutaneously operated patients required less opioids, had a shorter hospitalization and lower rate of adverse events in the perioperative period. The use of robotic guidance significantly increased accuracy of screw positioning while reducing the X-ray exposure. Patients seem to have a better perioperative course following percutaneous procedures.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Pictures a percutaneous robotic-guided procedure, as performed in 35 patients in this study. a1 shows the SpineAssist™ robot fixed to the spinous process by a clamp. The robot is already in the final position as planned by the surgeon on the planning-workstation. The arm which will guide drilling and guiding-wire insertion is being fixed to the robot. a2 shows placement of a guiding tube and marking of the skin at the planned entry point for pedicle screw placement. In a3 the skin has been incised at the marked spot and the guiding tube is inserted through the muscles to the entry point in the vertebral bone. a4 shows robotic-guided drilling of a transpedicular burr hole, a5 positioning of the guiding-wire and a6 percutaneous insertion of the screw. b shows a postoperative axial CT scan of the same screw and c displays the surgical wound postoperatively. The central incision was used for exposure of the spinous process and fixation of the robot and for placement of two PLIF cages. The four smaller incisions (two on each side) are the entry points of the percutaneously placed pedicle screws. The bar in the left lower corner of c is a cm scale
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Shows the surgical scar (left image) and postoperative CT scan (one sagittal and two axial reconstructions) after a robotic-guided percutaneous procedure (instrumentation from L2 to L4 because of osteoporotic L3 fracture). b Shows the same for a similar case (L3–L5 because of osteoporotic L4 fracture) operated by conventional pedicle screw positioning via a midline incision. The bars in the left lower corners of the photographs are cm scales
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Displays the system applied in this study for grading of pedicle screw deviations

References

    1. Kantelhardt SR, Bock CH, Larsen J, Bockermann V, Schillinger W, Rohde V, Giese A. Intraosseous ultrasound in the placement of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine. Spine. 2009;34(4):400–407. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819286ca.
    1. Wiesner L, Kothe R, Schulitz KP, Rüther W. Clinical evaluation and computed tomography scan analysis of screw tracts after percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine. Spine. 2000;25(5):615–621. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200003010-00013.
    1. Schizas C, Michel J, Kosmopoulos V, Theumann N. Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw insertion in percutaneous posterior transpedicular stabilization. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(5):613–617. doi: 10.1007/s00586-006-0221-x.
    1. Pechlivanis I, Kiriyanthan G, Engelhardt M, Scholz M, Lücke S, Harders A, Schmieder K. Percutaneous placement of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine using a bone mounted miniature robotic system: first experiences and accuracy of screw placement. Spine. 2009;34(4):392–398. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318191ed32.
    1. Lonstein JE, Denis F, Perra JH, Pinto MR, Smith MD, Winter RB. Complications associated with pedicle screws. J Bone Jt Surg (Am) 1999;81(11):1519–1528.
    1. Güven O, Yalçin S, Karahan M, Sevinç TT. Postoperative evaluation of transpedicular screws with computed tomography. Orthop Rev. 1994;23(6):511–516.
    1. Laine T, Lund T, Ylikoski M, Lohikoski J, Schlenzka D. Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with and without computer assistance: a randomised controlled clinical study in 100 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(3):235–240. doi: 10.1007/s005860000146.
    1. Wiesner L, Kothe R, Rüther W. Anatomic evaluation of two different techniques for the percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine. Spine. 1999;24(15):1599–1603. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199908010-00015.
    1. Grass R, Biewener A, Dickopf A, Rammelt S, Heineck J, Zwipp H. Percutaneous dorsal versus open instrumentation for fractures of the thoracolumbar border. A comparative, prospective study. Unfallchirurg. 2006;109(4):297–305. doi: 10.1007/s00113-005-1037-6.
    1. Foley KT, Gupta SK. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg. 2002;97(1 Suppl):7–12.
    1. Kim JS, Choi WG, Lee SH. Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine J. 2010;10(5):404–409. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.022.
    1. Ringel F, Stoffel M, Stüer C, Meyer B (2006) Minimally invasive transmuscular pedicle screw fixation of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery 59(4 Suppl 2):361–366
    1. Papadopoulos EC, Girardi FP, Sama A, Sandhu HS, Cammisa FP., Jr Accuracy of single-time, multilevel registration in image-guided spinal surgery. Spine J. 2005;5(3):263–267. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.10.048.
    1. Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Jost B, Visarius H, Arm E, Langlotz F, Nolte LP, Ozdoba C. Accuracy of computer-assisted pedicle screw placement. An in vivo computed tomography analysis. Spine. 1997;22(4):452–458. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199702150-00020.
    1. Kosmopoulos V, Schizas C. Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a metaanalysis. Spine. 2007;32:111–120. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000254048.79024.8b.
    1. Nakashima H, Sato K, Ando T, Inoh H, Nakamura H. Comparison of the percutaneous screw placement precision of isocentric C-arm 3-dimensional fluoroscopy-navigated pedicle screw implantation and conventional fluoroscopy method with minimally invasive surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22(7):468–472. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31819877c8.
    1. von Jako RA, Carrino JA, Yonemura KS, Noda GA, Zhue W, Blaskiewicz D, Rajue M, Groszmann DE, Weber G. Electromagnetic navigation for percutaneous guide-wire insertion: accuracy and efficiency compared to conventional fluoroscopic guidance. Neuroimage. 2009;47(Suppl 2):127–132. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.002.
    1. Mirza SK, Wiggins GC, Kuntz C 4th, York JE, Bellabarba C, Knonodi MA, Chapman JR, Shaffrey CI (2003) Accuracy of thoracic vertebral body screw placement using standard fluoroscopy, fluoroscopic image guidance, and computed tomographic image guidance: a cadaver study. Spine 28(4):402–413
    1. Best NM, Sasso RC, Garrido BJ. Computer-assisted spinal navigation using a percutaneous dynamic reference frame for posterior fusions of the lumbar spine. Am J Orthop. 2009;38(8):387–391.
    1. Deininger MH, Unfried MI, Vougioukas VI, Hubbe U. Minimally invasive dorsal percutaneous spondylodesis for the treatment of adult pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2009;151(11):1451–1457. doi: 10.1007/s00701-009-0377-3.
    1. Arts MP, Nieborg A, Brand R, Peul WC. Serum creatine phosphokinase as an indicator of muscle injury after various spinal and nonspinal surgical procedures. J Neurosurg. 2007;7:282–286.
    1. Kumbhare D, Parkinson W, Dunlop B. Validity of serum creatine kinase as a measure of muscle injury produced by lumbar surgery. J Spinal Disord. 2008;21:49–54. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31805777fb.
    1. Lehmann W, Ushmaev A, Ruecker A, Nuechtern J, Grossterlinden L, Begemann PG, Baeumer T, Rueger JM, Briem D. Comparison of open versus percutaneous pedicle screw insertion in a sheep model. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(6):857–863. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0652-7.
    1. Regev GJ, Lee YP, Taylor WR, Garfin SR, Kim CW. Nerve injury to the posterior rami medial branch during the insertion of pedicle screws: comparison of mini-open versus percutaneous pedicle screw insertion techniques. Spine. 2009;34(11):1239–1242. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819e2c5c.
    1. Huang QS, Chi YL, Wang XY, Mao FM, Lin Y, Ni WF, Xu HZ. Comparative percutaneous with open pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2008;46(2):112–114.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere