Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 2/2014

01-02-2014 | Review Article

Robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement: a systematic review

Authors: Hani J. Marcus, Thomas P. Cundy, Dipankar Nandi, Guang-Zhong Yang, Ara Darzi

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

At present, most spinal surgeons undertake pedicle screw implantation using either anatomical landmarks or C-arm fluoroscopy. Reported rates of screw malposition using these techniques vary considerably, though the evidence generally favors the use of image-guidance systems. A miniature spine-mounted robot has recently been developed to further improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. In this systematic review, we critically appraise the perceived benefits of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement compared to conventional fluoroscopy-guided technique.

Methods

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched between January 2006 and January 2013 to identify relevant publications that (1) featured placement of pedicle screws, (2) compared robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided surgery, (3) assessed outcome in terms of pedicle screw position, and (4) present sufficient data in each arm to enable meaningful comparison (>10 pedicle screws in each study group).

Results

A total of 246 articles were retrieved, of which 5 articles met inclusion criteria, collectively reporting placement of 1,308 pedicle screws (729 robot-assisted, 579 fluoroscopy-guided). The findings of these studies are mixed, with limited higher level of evidence data favoring fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and remaining comparative studies supporting robot-assisted pedicle screw placement.

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to unequivocally recommend one surgical technique over the other. Given the high cost of robotic systems, and the high risk of spinal surgery, further high quality studies are required to address unresolved clinical equipoise in this field.
Literature
1.
Barzilay Y, Liebergall M, Fridlander A, Knoller N (2006) Miniature robotic guidance for spine surgery—introduction of a novel system and analysis of challenges encountered during the clinical development phase at two spine centres. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 2(2):146–153CrossRef
2.
Barzilay Y, Liebergall M, Fridlander A, Knoller N (2006) Miniature robotic guidance for spine surgery—introduction of a novel system and analysis of challenges encountered during the clinical development phase at two spine centres. Int J Med Robot 2(2):146–153. doi:10.​1002/​rcs.​90 PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Devito DP, Kaplan L, Dietl R, Pfeiffer M, Horne D, Silberstein B, Hardenbrook M, Kiriyanthan G, Barzilay Y, Bruskin A, Sackerer D, Alexandrovsky V, Stuer C, Burger R, Maeurer J, Donald GD, Schoenmayr R, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Schmieder K, Pechlivanis I, Kim IS, Meyer B, Shoham M (2010) Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with SpineAssist surgical robot: retrospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(24):2109–2115. doi:10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e3181d323ab​ CrossRef
5.
Gelalis ID, Paschos NK, Pakos EE, Politis AN, Arnaoutoglou CM, Karageorgos AC, Ploumis A, Xenakis TA (2012) Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 21(2):247–255. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-011-2011-3 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15(1):11–14CrossRef
7.
8.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
11.
Lieberman IH, Hardenbrook MA, Wang JC, Guyer RD (2012) Assessment of pedicle screw placement accuracy, procedure time, and radiation exposure using a miniature robotic guidance system. J Spinal Disord Techn 25(5):241–248. doi:10.​1097/​BSD.​0b013e318218a5ef​ CrossRef
12.
Lieberman IH, Togawa D, Kayanja MM, Reinhardt MK, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Benzel EC (2006) Bone-mounted miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw placement: Part I-Technical development and a test case result. Neurosurgery 59(3):641–650. doi:10.​1227/​01.​NEU.​0000229055.​00829.​5B (discussion 641–650)PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
Pechlivanis I, Kiriyanthan G, Engelhardt M, Scholz M, Lucke S, Harders A, Schmieder K (2009) Percutaneous placement of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine using a bone mounted miniature robotic system: first experiences and accuracy of screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(4):392–398. doi:10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e318191ed32​ CrossRef
15.
Rampersaud YR, Pik JH, Salonen D, Farooq S (2005) Clinical accuracy of fluoroscopic computer-assisted pedicle screw fixation: a CT analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(7):E183–E190CrossRef
16.
Rampersaud YR, Simon DA, Foley KT (2001) Accuracy requirements for image-guided spinal pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(4):352–359CrossRef
17.
Ringel F, Stuer C, Reinke A, Preuss A, Behr M, Auer F, Stoffel M, Meyer B (2012) Accuracy of robot-assisted placement of lumbar and sacral pedicle screws: a prospective randomized comparison to conventional freehand screw implantation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(8):E496–E501. doi:10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e31824b7767​ CrossRef
18.
19.
20.
Schizas C, Thein E, Kwiatkowski B, Kulik G (2012) Pedicle screw insertion: robotic assistance versus conventional C-arm fluoroscopy. Acta Orthop Belg 78(2):240–245PubMed
21.
Shamir R, Freiman M, Joskowicz L, Shoham M, Zehavi E, Shoshan Y (2005) Robot-assisted image-guided targeting for minimally invasive neurosurgery: planning, registration, and in vitro experiment. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 8(Pt 2):131–138PubMed
22.
Shoham M, Lieberman IH, Benzel EC, Togawa D, Zehavi E, Zilberstein B, Roffman M, Bruskin A, Fridlander A, Joskowicz L, Brink-Danan S, Knoller N (2007) Robotic assisted spinal surgery—from concept to clinical practice. Comput Aided Surg 12(2):105–115. doi:10.​3109/​1092908070124398​1 PubMed
23.
Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73(9):712–716PubMedCrossRef
24.
Sukovich W, Brink-Danan S, Hardenbrook M (2006) Miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw placement in posterior spinal fusion: early clinical experience with the SpineAssist. Int J Med Robot 2(2):114–122. doi:10.​1002/​rcs.​86 PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
Togawa D, Kayanja MM, Reinhardt MK, Shoham M, Balter A, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Benzel EC, Lieberman IH (2007) Bone-mounted miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw placement: Part 2—Evaluation of system accuracy. Neurosurgery 60(2 Suppl 1):ONS-129–ONS-139
27.
28.
Wiesner L, Kothe R, Ruther W (1999) Anatomic evaluation of two different techniques for the percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(15):1599–1603CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement: a systematic review
Authors
Hani J. Marcus
Thomas P. Cundy
Dipankar Nandi
Guang-Zhong Yang
Ara Darzi
Publication date
01-02-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2879-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

European Spine Journal 2/2014 Go to the issue

Original Article

Clinical characteristics and treatment options for two types of osteoblastoma in the mobile spine: a retrospective study of 32 cases and outcomes

Original Article

Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

Erratum

Erratum to: Negative beliefs and psychological disturbance in spine surgery patients: a cause or consequence of a poor treatment outcome?

Author's Reply

Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Ning Zhu et al. entitled “Anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis” (by Bin Zhu, Yilan Xu, Xiaoguang Liu, Zhongjun Liu, Gengting Dang (2013) Eur Spine J 22(7); 1583–1593)

Original Article

The O-C2 angle established at occipito-cervical fusion dictates the patient’s destiny in terms of postoperative dyspnea and/or dysphagia

Letter to the Editor

Anular closure device: is it necessary after discectomy?