International orthopaedics · 2022
Robot-assisted versus navigation-assisted screw placement in spinal vertebrae.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Yu Tong, Jiao Jian-Hang, Wang Yang, Wang Qing-Yu, Jiang Wei-Bo, Wang Zhong-Han, Wu Min-Fei
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Both robots and navigation are effective strategies for optimizing screw placement, as compared to freehand placement. However, few studies have compared the accuracy and efficiency of these two techniques. Thus, the purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy and efficiency of robotic and navigation-assisted screw placement in the spinal vertebrae.
METHODS: The 24 spine models were divided into a robot- and navigation-assisted groups according to the left and right sides of the pedicle. The C-arm transmits image data simultaneously to the robot and navigates using only one scan. After screw placement, the accuracy of the two techniques were compared using "angular deviation" and "Gertzbein and Robbins scale" in different segments (C1-7, T1-4, T5-8, T9-12, and L1-S1). In addition, operation times were compared between robot- and navigation-assisted groups.
RESULTS: Robots and navigation systems can simultaneously assist in screw placement. The robot-assisted group had significantly less angular deviation than the navigation-assisted group from C1 to S1 (p < 0.001). At the C1-7 and T1-4 segments, the robot-assisted group had a higher rate of acceptable screws than the robot-assisted group. However, at the T5-8, T9-12, and L1-S1 segments, no significant difference was found in the incidence of acceptable screws between the two groups. Moreover, robot-assisted screw placement required less operative time than navigation (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The robot is more accurate and efficient than navigation in aiding screw placement. In addition, robots and navigation can be combined without increasing the number of fluoroscopic views.
METHODS: The 24 spine models were divided into a robot- and navigation-assisted groups according to the left and right sides of the pedicle. The C-arm transmits image data simultaneously to the robot and navigates using only one scan. After screw placement, the accuracy of the two techniques were compared using "angular deviation" and "Gertzbein and Robbins scale" in different segments (C1-7, T1-4, T5-8, T9-12, and L1-S1). In addition, operation times were compared between robot- and navigation-assisted groups.
RESULTS: Robots and navigation systems can simultaneously assist in screw placement. The robot-assisted group had significantly less angular deviation than the navigation-assisted group from C1 to S1 (p < 0.001). At the C1-7 and T1-4 segments, the robot-assisted group had a higher rate of acceptable screws than the robot-assisted group. However, at the T5-8, T9-12, and L1-S1 segments, no significant difference was found in the incidence of acceptable screws between the two groups. Moreover, robot-assisted screw placement required less operative time than navigation (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The robot is more accurate and efficient than navigation in aiding screw placement. In addition, robots and navigation can be combined without increasing the number of fluoroscopic views.