A Quantitative Assessment of the Accuracy and Reliability of Robotically Guided Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement: Technique and Application Accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and anterior (ALIF), transforaminal (TLIF), or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) often require percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PSF) to achieve circumferential fusion. Robotic guidance technology may augment workflow to improve screw placement and decrease operative time. OBJECTIVE: To report surgical experience with robotically assisted percutaneous screw placement following LLIF. METHODS: Data from fusions with robotically assisted PSF in prone or lateral decubitus positions was reviewed. A CT-guided robotic guidance arm was used for screw placement (Excelsius GPS™, Globus Medical Inc, Audubon, Pennsylvania). Postoperative CT imaging facilitated screw localization. 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional coordinates of the screw tip and tail were calculated and compared with a target trajectory to calculate targeting errors. Breach was defined as a violation of the lateral or medial pedicle wall. RESULTS: Robotic-guided screw placement was successful in 28/31 patients. In those patients, 116/116 screws were successfully implanted. The breach rate was 3.4% (4/116). Across 17 patients (70 screws), mean 3-D accuracy was 5.0 ± 2.4 mm, mean 2-D accuracy was 2.6 ± 1.1 mm, and mean angular offset was 5.6 ± 4.3° with corresponding intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of 0.775 and 0.693. 3-dimensional accuracy correlated with age (R = 0.306, P = .011) and BMI (R = 0.252, P = .038). Accuracy did not significantly differ among vertebral body levels (P > .22). Mean operative time for MIS-TLIF and percutaneous screws was 277 ± 52 and 183 ± 54 min, respectively. Operative time did not significantly decrease across either group (P > .187). CONCLUSION: The Excelsius GPS™ robotic guidance system allows accurate PSF in most cases with 2 mm 2-D accuracy. Future studies are needed to demonstrate the utility of this novel guidance system and workflow improvement.

Iliac screws may not be necessary in long-segment constructs with L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion: cadaveric study of stability and instrumentation strain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbosacral pseudoarthrosis and instrumentation failure is common with long-segment constructs. Optimizing lumbosacral construct biomechanics may help to reduce failure rates. The influence of iliac screws and interbody type on range of motion (ROM), rod strain (RS), sacral screw strain (SS) is not well-established. PURPOSE: Investigate the effects of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and iliac screws on long-segment lumbosacral construct biomechanics. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Fourteen human cadaveric spine specimens. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lumbosacral ROM, RS, and SS. METHODS: Specimens were potted at L1 and the ilium. Specimens were equally divided into either an L5-S1 ALIF or TLIF group and underwent testing in the following conditions: (1) intact (2) L2-S1 pedicle screw rod fixation (PSR-S) (3) L2-ilium (PSR-I) (4) PSR-S+ALIF (ALIF-S) or TLIF (TLIF-S) (5) PSR-I + ALIF (ALIF-I) or TLIF (TLIF-I). Pure moment bending (7.5 Nm) in flexion, extension, lateral bending, axial rotation, and compressive loads (400N) were applied and ROM, SS, and RS were measured. Comparisons were performed using a one-way ANOVA (p<.05). RESULTS: ALIF-S and TLIF-S provided similar decreases in ROM as TLIF-I (p>.05). Compared to PSR-S, PSR-I significantly decreased SS during bending in all directions (p<.02) but increased RS in flexion and extension (p≤.02). Anterior lumbar interbody fusion-S provided similar decreases in SS as TLIF-I in all directions (p>.40) but had significantly less RS than TLIF-I in flexion, extension, compression (p<.01). TLIF-S had more SS than TLIF-I in flexion, extension, axial rotation (p<.02), while TLIF-S had less RS only in flexion (p=.03). Compared to PSR-I, ALIF-I decreased the RS (p<.02) but TLIF-I did not (p>.67). CONCLUSIONS: Iliac screws were protective of SS but increased RS at the lumbosacral junction. Constructs with ALIF and no iliac screws result in comparable SS as constructs with TLIF and iliac screws with significantly reduced RS. If iliac screws are utilized, ALIF but not TLIF reduces the iliac screw-induced RS. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: There is a relatively high incidence of lumbosacral instrumentation failure in adult spinal deformity. Optimizing lumbosacral construct biomechanics may help to reduce failure rates. Iliac screws induce lumbosacral rod strain and may be responsible for instrumentation failure. Constructs with lumbosacral ALIF reduce iliac-screw induced rod strain and may obviate the need for fixation to the ilium.