Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Robot-assisted and augmented reality-assisted spinal instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of screw accuracy and outcomes over the last decade.
Tovar, Matthew A; Dowlati, Ehsan; Zhao, David Y; Khan, Ziam; Pasko, Kory B D; Sandhu, Faheem A; Voyadzis, Jean-Marc.
Afiliação
  • Tovar MA; 1School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
  • Dowlati E; 2Department of Neurosurgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.
  • Zhao DY; 2Department of Neurosurgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.
  • Khan Z; 3Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland; and.
  • Pasko KBD; 4Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.
  • Sandhu FA; 2Department of Neurosurgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.
  • Voyadzis JM; 2Department of Neurosurgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.
J Neurosurg Spine ; : 1-16, 2022 Feb 25.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35213837
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

The use of technology-enhanced methods in spine surgery has increased immensely over the past decade. Here, the authors present the largest systematic review and meta-analysis to date that specifically addresses patient-centered outcomes, including the risk of inaccurate screw placement and perioperative outcomes in spinal surgeries using robotic instrumentation and/or augmented reality surgical navigation (ARSN).

METHODS:

A systematic review of the literature in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases spanning the last decade (January 2011-November 2021) was performed to present all clinical studies comparing robot-assisted instrumentation and ARSN with conventional instrumentation techniques in lumbar spine surgery. The authors compared these two technologies as they relate to screw accuracy, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative time, length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, radiation dose and time, and the rate of reoperation.

RESULTS:

A total of 64 studies were analyzed that included 11,113 patients receiving 20,547 screws. Robot-assisted instrumentation was associated with less risk of inaccurate screw placement (p < 0.0001) regardless of control arm approach (freehand, fluoroscopy guided, or navigation guided), fewer reoperations (p < 0.0001), fewer perioperative complications (p < 0.0001), lower EBL (p = 0.0005), decreased LOS (p < 0.0001), and increased intraoperative time (p = 0.0003). ARSN was associated with decreased radiation exposure compared with robotic instrumentation (p = 0.0091) and fluoroscopy-guided (p < 0.0001) techniques.

CONCLUSIONS:

Altogether, the pooled data suggest that technology-enhanced thoracolumbar instrumentation is advantageous for both patients and surgeons. As the technology progresses and indications expand, it remains essential to continue investigations of both robotic instrumentation and ARSN to validate meaningful benefit over conventional instrumentation techniques in spine surgery.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article