Minimally invasive robotic versus open fluoroscopic-guided spinal instrumented fusions

Spine

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 353-358

  Hyun, Seung Jae ^a   Kim, Ki Jeong ^a   Jahng, Tae Ahn ^a   Kim, Hyun Jib ^a  

^a Seoul National University Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

intraoperative radiation; minimally invasive; randomized clinical trial; robotic spine surgery

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CAGE DISLODGEMENT; CLINICAL OUTCOME; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRILL GUIDE; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; FLUOROSCOPY GUIDED SPINAL INSTRUMENTED FUSION; FLUOROSCOPY SYSTEM; GUIDE WIRE; HUMAN; KIRSCHNER WIRE; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DEVICE COMPLICATION; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OPEN SURGERY; OPERATING ROOM; OPERATION DURATION; ORTHOPEDIC SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PEDICLE SCREW; PEDICLE SCREW MALPOSITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RENAISSANCE SURGICAL GUIDANCE ROBOT; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; ROBOTIC GUIDED MINIMALLY INVASIVE SPINE FUSION; SPINE FUSION; SURGICAL PATIENT; THERMOLUMINESCENCE DOSIMETER; TITANIUM CAGE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; BONE SCREW; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; ROBOTICS; SURGERY;

AGED; BONE SCREWS; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; ROBOTICS; SPINAL FUSION;

EID: 84978127700     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001778     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:S26-35.
2. Ntoukas V, Muller A. Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2010;53:21-4.
3. Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:537-43.
4. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011;24:479-84.
5. Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R. Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;15:2273-81; 35 (26).
6. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2012;21:2265-70.
7. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci 2012;19:829-35.
8. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:1385-9.
9. Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J 2013;22:1741-9.
10. Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, et al. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;3:98-105.
11. Allen RT, Garfin SR. The economics of minimally invasive spine surgery: the value perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35: S375-82.
12. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al. Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2011;20:623-8.
13. Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, et al. An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;12:694-9.
14. Devito DP, Kaplan L, Dietl R, et al. Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with SpineAssist surgical robot: retrospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:2109-15.
15. Hu X, Lieberman IH. What is the learning curve for roboticassisted pedicle screw placement in spine surgery? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:1839-44.
16. Onen MR, Simsek M, Naderi S. Robotic spine surgery: a preliminary report. Turk Neurosurg 2014;24:512-8.
17. Kim HJ, Lee SH, Chang BS, et al. Monitoring the quality of robotassisted pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine by using a cumulative summation test. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40:87-94.
18. Kantelhardt SR, Martinez R, Baerwinkel S, et al. Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J 2011;20:860-8.
19. Roser F, Tatagiba M, Maier G. Spinal robotics: current applications and future perspectives. Neurosurgery 2013;72:12-8.
20. Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990;15:11-4.
21. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 15;25:2940-52.
22. Medical Research Council: Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. BMJ 1948;2:769-82.
23. Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials-review. Trials 2009; 10:9.
24. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 2010;1:12.
25. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 2009;33:1683-8.
26. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 2010;19:1780-4.
27. Dhall SS, Wang MY. Mummaneni PV Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:560-5.
28. Wang HL, Lu FZ, Jiang JY, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011;124:3868-74.
29. Mastrangelo G, Fedeli U, Fadda E, et al. Increased cancer risk among surgeons in an orthopaedic hospital. Occupational Medicine 2005;55:498-500.
30. Ringel F, Stoffel M, Stuer C, et al. Minimally invasive transmuscular pedicle screw fixation of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery 2006;59:ONS361-6; discussion ONS6-7.
31. van Dijk JD, van den Ende RP, Stramigioli S, et al. Clinical pedicle screw accuracy and deviation from planning in robot-guided spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40:E986-91.
32. Kosmopoulos V, Schizas C. Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:E111-20.
33. Aoude AA, Fortin M, Figueiredo R, et al. Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2015;24:990-1004.
34. Tian NF, Huang QS, Zhou P, et al. Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Spine J 2011;20: 846-59.
35. Ma J, Fan S, Zhao F. Intraoperative malposition of pedicle probe or screws: a potential cause of the acceleration of degeneration in superior adjacent intervertebral disc. Med Hypotheses 2011;77: 1102-4.