ABSTRACT
The efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement compared to traditional fluoroscopy-guided techniques are of great interest in the field of spinal surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of these two methods in patients with spinal diseases. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. We included randomized controlled trials comparing robotic-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement in patients with spinal diseases. Outcome measures included the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, postoperative complication rates, intraoperative radiation exposure time, and duration of surgery. Data were analyzed using Stata software. Our analysis included 12 studies. It revealed significantly higher accuracy in pedicle screw placement with robotic assistance (odds ratio [OR] = 2.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.20-3.64, P < 0.01). Postoperative complication rates, intraoperative radiation exposure time, and duration of surgery were similar between the two techniques (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.31 to 1.68, P = 0.56 for complication rates; weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 0.13, 95% CI = - 0.93 to 0.68, P = 0.86 for radiation exposure time; WMD = 0.30, 95% CI = - 0.06 to 0.66, P = 0.06 for duration of surgery). Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement offers superior placement accuracy compared to fluoroscopy-guided techniques. Postoperative complication rates, intraoperative radiation exposure time, and duration of surgery were comparable for both methods. Future studies should explore the potential for fewer complications with the robotic-assisted approach as suggested by the lower point estimate.
