Spine deformity · 2024
Robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion versus navigation-based and freehand techniques for posterior spinal fusion in scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Al-Naseem Abdulrahman O, Al-Muhannadi Abdullah, Ramadhan Mohammad, Alfadhli Alwaleed, Marwan Yousef, Shafafy Roozbeh, Abd-El-Barr Muhammad M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The role of robotics in spine surgery remains controversial, especially for scoliosis correction surgery. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted (RA) surgery specifically for scoliosis surgery by comparing RA to both navigation systems (NS) and conventional freehand techniques (CF).
METHODS: As per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted via an electronic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All papers comparing RA to either NS or CF for posterior spinal fusion in scoliosis were included. Fixed and random effects models of analysis were utilised based on analysis heterogeneity.
RESULTS: 10 observational studies were included in total. RA had significantly greater odds of accurate pedicle screw placement relative to both NS (OR = 2.02, CI = 1.52-2.67, p < 0.00001) and CF (OR = 3.06, CI = 1.79-5.23, p < 0.00001). The downside of RA was the significantly greater operation duration relative to NS (MD = 10.74, CI = 3.52-17.97, p = 0.004) and CF (MD = 40.27, CI = 20.90, p < 0.0001). Perioperative outcomes including estimated blood loss, radiation exposure, length of hospital stay, cobb angle correction rate, postoperative SRS score, VAS pain score, JOA score, as well as rates of neurological injury and revision surgery, were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: RA offers significantly greater pedicle screw placement accuracy relative to NS and CF, however, surgery can take longer. In terms of perioperative outcomes, all three techniques are comparable.
METHODS: As per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted via an electronic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All papers comparing RA to either NS or CF for posterior spinal fusion in scoliosis were included. Fixed and random effects models of analysis were utilised based on analysis heterogeneity.
RESULTS: 10 observational studies were included in total. RA had significantly greater odds of accurate pedicle screw placement relative to both NS (OR = 2.02, CI = 1.52-2.67, p < 0.00001) and CF (OR = 3.06, CI = 1.79-5.23, p < 0.00001). The downside of RA was the significantly greater operation duration relative to NS (MD = 10.74, CI = 3.52-17.97, p = 0.004) and CF (MD = 40.27, CI = 20.90, p < 0.0001). Perioperative outcomes including estimated blood loss, radiation exposure, length of hospital stay, cobb angle correction rate, postoperative SRS score, VAS pain score, JOA score, as well as rates of neurological injury and revision surgery, were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: RA offers significantly greater pedicle screw placement accuracy relative to NS and CF, however, surgery can take longer. In terms of perioperative outcomes, all three techniques are comparable.