The pedicle screw accuracy using a robotic system and measured by a novel three-dimensional method.

Autor: Oppermann M; Department of Clinical Neurological Science, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada. Marcelo.Oppermann@lhsc.on.ca.; Department of Electrical Computer and Biomedical Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada. Marcelo.Oppermann@lhsc.on.ca., Karapetyan V; Department of Clinical Neurological Science, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada., Gupta S; Department of Electrical Computer and Biomedical Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada., Ramjist J; Department of Electrical Computer and Biomedical Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada., Oppermann P; Department of Clinical Neurological Science, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada., Yang VXD; Department of Clinical Neurological Science, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.; Department of Electrical Computer and Biomedical Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research [J Orthop Surg Res] 2023 Sep 20; Vol. 18 (1), pp. 706. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Sep 20.
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04206-5
Abstrakt: Robotics in medicine is associated with precision, accuracy, and replicability. Several robotic systems are used in spine surgery. They are all considered shared-control systems, providing "steady-hand" manipulation instruments. Although numerous studies have testified to the benefits of robotic instrumentations, they must address their true accuracy. Our study used the Mazor system under several situations and compared the spatial accuracy of the pedicle screw (PS) insertion and its planned trajectory. We used two cadaveric specimens with intact spinal structures from C7 to S1. PS planning was performed using the two registration methods (preopCT/C-arm or CT-to-fluoroscopy registration). After planning, the implant spatial orientation was defined based on six anatomic parameters using axial and sagittal CT images. Two surgical open and percutaneous access were used to insert the PS. After that, another CT acquisition was taken. Accuracy was classified into optimal, inaccurate and unacceptable according to the degree of screw deviation from its planning using the same spatial orientation method. Based on the type of spatial deviation, we also classified the PS trajectory into 16 pattern errors. Seven (19%) out of 37 implanted screws were considered unacceptable (deviation distances > 2.0 mm or angulation > 5°), and 14 (38%) were inaccurate (> 0.5 mm and ≤ 2.0 mm or > 2.5° and ≤ 5°). CT-to-fluoroscopy registration was superior to preopCT/C-arm (average deviation in 0.9 mm vs. 1.7 mm, respectively, p < 0.003), and percutaneous was slightly better than open but did not reach significance (1.3 mm vs. 1.7 mm, respectively). Regarding pattern error, the tendency was to have more axial than sagittal shifts. Using a quantitative method to categorize the screw 3D position, only 10.8% of the screws were considered unacceptable. However, with a more rigorous concept of inaccuracy, almost half were non-optimal. We also identified that, unlike some previous results, the O-arm registration delivers more accurate implants than the preopCT/C-arm method.
(© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje