Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE Surgical robotics has demonstrated utility across the spectrum of surgery. Robotics in spine surgery, however, remains in its infancy. Here, the authors systematically review the evidence behind robotic applications in spinal instrumentation. METHODS This systematic review was conducted ac...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurosurgical focus 2017-05, Vol.42 (5), p.E2-E2
Hauptverfasser: Joseph, Jacob R, Smith, Brandon W, Liu, Xilin, Park, Paul
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page E2
container_issue 5
container_start_page E2
container_title Neurosurgical focus
container_volume 42
creator Joseph, Jacob R
Smith, Brandon W
Liu, Xilin
Park, Paul
description OBJECTIVE Surgical robotics has demonstrated utility across the spectrum of surgery. Robotics in spine surgery, however, remains in its infancy. Here, the authors systematically review the evidence behind robotic applications in spinal instrumentation. METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies (through October 2016) that reported the use of robotics in spinal instrumentation were identified from a search of the PubMed database. Data regarding the accuracy of screw placement, surgeon learning curve, radiation exposure, and reasons for robotic failure were extracted. RESULTS Twenty-five studies describing 2 unique robots met inclusion criteria. Of these, 22 studies evaluated accuracy of spinal instrumentation. Although grading of pedicle screw accuracy was variable, the most commonly used method was the Gertzbein and Robbins system of classification. In the studies using the Gertzbein and Robbins system, accuracy (Grades A and B) ranged from 85% to 100%. Ten studies evaluated radiation exposure during the procedure. In studies that detailed fluoroscopy usage, overall fluoroscopy times ranged from 1.3 to 34 seconds per screw. Nine studies examined the learning curve for the surgeon, and 12 studies described causes of robotic failure, which included registration failure, soft-tissue hindrance, and lateral skiving of the drill guide. CONCLUSIONS Robotics in spine surgery is an emerging technology that holds promise for future applications. Surgical accuracy in instrumentation implanted using robotics appears to be high. However, the impact of robotics on radiation exposure is not clear and seems to be dependent on technique and robot type.
doi_str_mv 10.3171/2017.2.focus16544
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1894917785</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1894917785</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-8b061c8b368b0690675ac7903f806012527cd4f35c463abf1d970f4c0cb498ba3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkD1PwzAURS0EolD4ASzII0uKPxLbYUMVBaRKHaASm-W4NhglcbAdUP89CS2I6d3hnqunA8AFRjOKOb4mCPMZmVmv-4hZkecH4ASjkmSIifzwX56A0xjfEaKk4MUxmBCRM8qwOAEv8z4E0yaouq52WiXn2wi9hcFXPjkdoWth7FxrYOzDqwnbG6hg3MZkmqGsYTCfznyNRHozsHbJBJX6YM7AkVV1NOf7OwXrxd3z_CFbru4f57fLTBeIpUxUiGEtKsrGVCLGC6V5iagViCFMCsL1Jre00MPHqrJ4U3Jkc410lZeiUnQKrna7XfAfvYlJNi5qU9eqNb6PEosyLzHnohiqeFfVwccYjJVdcI0KW4mRHIXKUagkcrGar59-hA7M5X6-rxqz-SN-DdJv2f1yNw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1894917785</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Joseph, Jacob R ; Smith, Brandon W ; Liu, Xilin ; Park, Paul</creator><creatorcontrib>Joseph, Jacob R ; Smith, Brandon W ; Liu, Xilin ; Park, Paul</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE Surgical robotics has demonstrated utility across the spectrum of surgery. Robotics in spine surgery, however, remains in its infancy. Here, the authors systematically review the evidence behind robotic applications in spinal instrumentation. METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies (through October 2016) that reported the use of robotics in spinal instrumentation were identified from a search of the PubMed database. Data regarding the accuracy of screw placement, surgeon learning curve, radiation exposure, and reasons for robotic failure were extracted. RESULTS Twenty-five studies describing 2 unique robots met inclusion criteria. Of these, 22 studies evaluated accuracy of spinal instrumentation. Although grading of pedicle screw accuracy was variable, the most commonly used method was the Gertzbein and Robbins system of classification. In the studies using the Gertzbein and Robbins system, accuracy (Grades A and B) ranged from 85% to 100%. Ten studies evaluated radiation exposure during the procedure. In studies that detailed fluoroscopy usage, overall fluoroscopy times ranged from 1.3 to 34 seconds per screw. Nine studies examined the learning curve for the surgeon, and 12 studies described causes of robotic failure, which included registration failure, soft-tissue hindrance, and lateral skiving of the drill guide. CONCLUSIONS Robotics in spine surgery is an emerging technology that holds promise for future applications. Surgical accuracy in instrumentation implanted using robotics appears to be high. However, the impact of robotics on radiation exposure is not clear and seems to be dependent on technique and robot type.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1092-0684</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1092-0684</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3171/2017.2.focus16544</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28463618</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Humans ; Neurosurgical Procedures - instrumentation ; Neurosurgical Procedures - methods ; Robotics - instrumentation ; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation ; Spinal Fusion - methods ; Spine - surgery ; Surgery, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Neurosurgical focus, 2017-05, Vol.42 (5), p.E2-E2</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-8b061c8b368b0690675ac7903f806012527cd4f35c463abf1d970f4c0cb498ba3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-8b061c8b368b0690675ac7903f806012527cd4f35c463abf1d970f4c0cb498ba3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28463618$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Joseph, Jacob R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Brandon W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Xilin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Paul</creatorcontrib><title>Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature</title><title>Neurosurgical focus</title><addtitle>Neurosurg Focus</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE Surgical robotics has demonstrated utility across the spectrum of surgery. Robotics in spine surgery, however, remains in its infancy. Here, the authors systematically review the evidence behind robotic applications in spinal instrumentation. METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies (through October 2016) that reported the use of robotics in spinal instrumentation were identified from a search of the PubMed database. Data regarding the accuracy of screw placement, surgeon learning curve, radiation exposure, and reasons for robotic failure were extracted. RESULTS Twenty-five studies describing 2 unique robots met inclusion criteria. Of these, 22 studies evaluated accuracy of spinal instrumentation. Although grading of pedicle screw accuracy was variable, the most commonly used method was the Gertzbein and Robbins system of classification. In the studies using the Gertzbein and Robbins system, accuracy (Grades A and B) ranged from 85% to 100%. Ten studies evaluated radiation exposure during the procedure. In studies that detailed fluoroscopy usage, overall fluoroscopy times ranged from 1.3 to 34 seconds per screw. Nine studies examined the learning curve for the surgeon, and 12 studies described causes of robotic failure, which included registration failure, soft-tissue hindrance, and lateral skiving of the drill guide. CONCLUSIONS Robotics in spine surgery is an emerging technology that holds promise for future applications. Surgical accuracy in instrumentation implanted using robotics appears to be high. However, the impact of robotics on radiation exposure is not clear and seems to be dependent on technique and robot type.</description><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Neurosurgical Procedures - instrumentation</subject><subject>Neurosurgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Robotics - instrumentation</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - methods</subject><subject>Spine - surgery</subject><subject>Surgery, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1092-0684</issn><issn>1092-0684</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkD1PwzAURS0EolD4ASzII0uKPxLbYUMVBaRKHaASm-W4NhglcbAdUP89CS2I6d3hnqunA8AFRjOKOb4mCPMZmVmv-4hZkecH4ASjkmSIifzwX56A0xjfEaKk4MUxmBCRM8qwOAEv8z4E0yaouq52WiXn2wi9hcFXPjkdoWth7FxrYOzDqwnbG6hg3MZkmqGsYTCfznyNRHozsHbJBJX6YM7AkVV1NOf7OwXrxd3z_CFbru4f57fLTBeIpUxUiGEtKsrGVCLGC6V5iagViCFMCsL1Jre00MPHqrJ4U3Jkc410lZeiUnQKrna7XfAfvYlJNi5qU9eqNb6PEosyLzHnohiqeFfVwccYjJVdcI0KW4mRHIXKUagkcrGar59-hA7M5X6-rxqz-SN-DdJv2f1yNw</recordid><startdate>20170501</startdate><enddate>20170501</enddate><creator>Joseph, Jacob R</creator><creator>Smith, Brandon W</creator><creator>Liu, Xilin</creator><creator>Park, Paul</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170501</creationdate><title>Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature</title><author>Joseph, Jacob R ; Smith, Brandon W ; Liu, Xilin ; Park, Paul</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-8b061c8b368b0690675ac7903f806012527cd4f35c463abf1d970f4c0cb498ba3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Neurosurgical Procedures - instrumentation</topic><topic>Neurosurgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Robotics - instrumentation</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - methods</topic><topic>Spine - surgery</topic><topic>Surgery, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Joseph, Jacob R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Brandon W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Xilin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Paul</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neurosurgical focus</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Joseph, Jacob R</au><au>Smith, Brandon W</au><au>Liu, Xilin</au><au>Park, Paul</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature</atitle><jtitle>Neurosurgical focus</jtitle><addtitle>Neurosurg Focus</addtitle><date>2017-05-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>E2</spage><epage>E2</epage><pages>E2-E2</pages><issn>1092-0684</issn><eissn>1092-0684</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVE Surgical robotics has demonstrated utility across the spectrum of surgery. Robotics in spine surgery, however, remains in its infancy. Here, the authors systematically review the evidence behind robotic applications in spinal instrumentation. METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies (through October 2016) that reported the use of robotics in spinal instrumentation were identified from a search of the PubMed database. Data regarding the accuracy of screw placement, surgeon learning curve, radiation exposure, and reasons for robotic failure were extracted. RESULTS Twenty-five studies describing 2 unique robots met inclusion criteria. Of these, 22 studies evaluated accuracy of spinal instrumentation. Although grading of pedicle screw accuracy was variable, the most commonly used method was the Gertzbein and Robbins system of classification. In the studies using the Gertzbein and Robbins system, accuracy (Grades A and B) ranged from 85% to 100%. Ten studies evaluated radiation exposure during the procedure. In studies that detailed fluoroscopy usage, overall fluoroscopy times ranged from 1.3 to 34 seconds per screw. Nine studies examined the learning curve for the surgeon, and 12 studies described causes of robotic failure, which included registration failure, soft-tissue hindrance, and lateral skiving of the drill guide. CONCLUSIONS Robotics in spine surgery is an emerging technology that holds promise for future applications. Surgical accuracy in instrumentation implanted using robotics appears to be high. However, the impact of robotics on radiation exposure is not clear and seems to be dependent on technique and robot type.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>28463618</pmid><doi>10.3171/2017.2.focus16544</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1092-0684
ispartof Neurosurgical focus, 2017-05, Vol.42 (5), p.E2-E2
issn 1092-0684
1092-0684
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1894917785
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Humans
Neurosurgical Procedures - instrumentation
Neurosurgical Procedures - methods
Robotics - instrumentation
Spinal Fusion - instrumentation
Spinal Fusion - methods
Spine - surgery
Surgery, Computer-Assisted - methods
Treatment Outcome
title Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T10%3A00%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Current%20applications%20of%20robotics%20in%20spine%20surgery:%20a%20systematic%20review%20of%20the%20literature&rft.jtitle=Neurosurgical%20focus&rft.au=Joseph,%20Jacob%20R&rft.date=2017-05-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=E2&rft.epage=E2&rft.pages=E2-E2&rft.issn=1092-0684&rft.eissn=1092-0684&rft_id=info:doi/10.3171/2017.2.focus16544&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1894917785%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1894917785&rft_id=info:pmid/28463618&rfr_iscdi=true