Clinical spine surgery · 2024
Comparison of Cervical Pedicle Screw Placement Accuracy With Robotic Guidance System Versus Image Guidance System Using Propensity Score Matching.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yamamoto Yuki, Fujishiro Takashi, Hirai Hiromichi, Hayama Sachio, Nakaya Yoshiharu, Usami Yoshitada, Neo Masashi
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of cervical pedicle screw (CPS) placement using a robotic guidance system (RGS) with that of using an image guidance system (IGS; navigation system) through propensity score matching.
BACKGROUND: The RGS may provide accurate CPS placement, which may outperform IGS. However, no study has directly compared the accuracy of CPS placement with the RGS to that with the IGS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who had undergone cervical fusion surgery using CPS with the RGS or IGS. To adjust for potential confounders (patient demographic characteristics, disease etiology, and registration material), propensity score matching was performed, creating robotic guidance (RG) and matched image guidance (IG) groups. The accuracy of CPS placement from C2 to C6, where the vertebral artery runs, was evaluated on postoperative computed tomography images according to the Neo classification (grade 0 to grade 3). Furthermore, the intraoperative CPS revisions and related complications were examined.
RESULTS: Using propensity score matching, 22 patients were included in the RG and matched groups each, and a total of 95 and 105 CPSs, respectively, were included in the analysis. In both the axial and sagittal planes, the clinically acceptable rate (grades 0 + 1) of CPS placement did not differ between the RG and matched IG groups (97.9% vs 94.3% and 95.8% vs 96.2%, respectively). The incidence of CPS revision was similar between the groups (2.1% vs 2.9%), and no CPS-related complications were documented. Meanwhile, the incidence of lateral breach (grades 1 + 2 + 3) was significantly lower in the RG group than in the matched IG group (1.1% vs 7.7%, P = 0.037).
CONCLUSION: The RGS and IGS can equally aid in accurate and safe CPS placement in clinical settings. Nonetheless, RGS can further reduce the lateral breach, compared with IGS.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of cervical pedicle screw (CPS) placement using a robotic guidance system (RGS) with that of using an image guidance system (IGS; navigation system) through propensity score matching.
BACKGROUND: The RGS may provide accurate CPS placement, which may outperform IGS. However, no study has directly compared the accuracy of CPS placement with the RGS to that with the IGS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who had undergone cervical fusion surgery using CPS with the RGS or IGS. To adjust for potential confounders (patient demographic characteristics, disease etiology, and registration material), propensity score matching was performed, creating robotic guidance (RG) and matched image guidance (IG) groups. The accuracy of CPS placement from C2 to C6, where the vertebral artery runs, was evaluated on postoperative computed tomography images according to the Neo classification (grade 0 to grade 3). Furthermore, the intraoperative CPS revisions and related complications were examined.
RESULTS: Using propensity score matching, 22 patients were included in the RG and matched groups each, and a total of 95 and 105 CPSs, respectively, were included in the analysis. In both the axial and sagittal planes, the clinically acceptable rate (grades 0 + 1) of CPS placement did not differ between the RG and matched IG groups (97.9% vs 94.3% and 95.8% vs 96.2%, respectively). The incidence of CPS revision was similar between the groups (2.1% vs 2.9%), and no CPS-related complications were documented. Meanwhile, the incidence of lateral breach (grades 1 + 2 + 3) was significantly lower in the RG group than in the matched IG group (1.1% vs 7.7%, P = 0.037).
CONCLUSION: The RGS and IGS can equally aid in accurate and safe CPS placement in clinical settings. Nonetheless, RGS can further reduce the lateral breach, compared with IGS.