A feasibility cadaver study for placing screws in various pelvic osseous fracture pathways using a robotic arm.

INTRODUCTION: The use of a robotic system for the placement of pedicle screws in spine surgeries is well documented in the literature. However, there is only a single report in the United States describing the use of a robotic system to place two screws in osseous fixation pathways (OFPs) commonly used in the treatment of pelvic and acetabular fractures in a simulated bone model. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the use of a robotic system to place screws in multiple, clinically relevant OFPs in a cadaveric model and to quantitatively measure accuracy of screw placement relative to the preoperative plan. METHODS: A single cadaveric specimen was obtained for the purpose of this study. All surrounding soft tissues were left intact. Screws were placed in OFPs, namely iliosacral (IS), trans-sacral (TS), Lateral Compression-II (LC-II), antegrade anterior column (AC) and antegrade posterior column (PC) of the right hemipelvis using standard, fluoroscopically assisted percutaneous or mini-open technique. Following the placement of screws into the right hemipelvis using standard techniques, screws were planned and placed in the same OFPs of the contralateral hemipelvis using the commercially available ExcelsiusGPS® robotic system (Globus Medical Inc., Audubon, PA). After robotic-assisted screw placement, a post-procedure CT scan was obtained to evaluate actual screw placement against the pre-procedure plan. A custom-made image analysis program was devised to measure screw tip/tail offset and angular offset on axial and sagittal planes. RESULTS: For different OFPs, the mean tip offset, tail offset and angular offsets were 1.6 ± 0.9 mm (Range 0.0-3.6 mm), 1.4 ± 0.4 mm (Range 0.3-2.5 mm) and 1.1 ± 0.4° (Range 0.5-2.1), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this feasibility study, surgeons were able to place screws into the clinically relevant fracture pathways of the pelvis using ExcelsiusGPS® for robotic-assisted surgery. The measured accuracy was encouraging; however, further investigation is needed to demonstrate that robotic-assisted surgery can be used to successfully place the screws in the bony corridors of the pelvis to treat traumatic pelvic injuries.

Percutaneous Juxtapedicular Cement Salvage of Failed Spinal Instrumentation? Institutional Experience and Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Instrumented spinal fusion constructs sometimes fail because of fatigue loading, frequently necessitating open revision surgery. Favorable outcomes after percutaneous juxtapedicular cement salvage (perc-cement salvage) of failing instrumentation have been described; however, this approach is not widely known among spine surgeons , and its biomechanical properties have not been evaluated. We report our institutional experience with perc-cement salvage and investigate the relative biomechanical strength of this technique as compared with 3 other common open revision techniques. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent perc-cement salvage was conducted. Biomechanical characterization of revision techniques was performed in a cadaveric model of critical pedicle screw failure. Three revision cohorts involved removal and replacement of hardware: (1) screw upsizing, (2) vertebroplasty, and (3) fenestrated screw with cement augmentation. These were compared with a cohort with perc-cement salvage performed using a juxtapedicular trajectory with the failed primary screw remaining engaged in the vertebral body. RESULTS: Ten patients underwent perc-cement salvage from 2018 to 2022 to address screw haloing and/or endplate fracture threatening construct integrity. Pain palliation was reported by 8/10 patients. Open revision surgery was required in 4/10 patients, an average of 8.9 months after the salvage procedure (range 6.2-14.7 months). Only one revision was due to progressive hardware dislodgement. The remainder avoided open revision surgery through an average of 1.9 years of follow-up. In the cadaveric study, there were no significant differences in pedicle screw pullout strength among any of the revision cohorts. CONCLUSION: Perc-cement salvage of failing instrumentation is reasonably efficacious. The technique is biomechanically noninferior to other revision strategies that require open surgery for removal and replacement of hardware. Open revision surgery may be avoided by perc-cement salvage in select cases.