Comparison of the Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement Using a Fluoroscopy-Assisted Free-Hand Technique with Robotic-Assisted Navigation Using an O-Arm or 3D C-Arm in Scoliosis Surgery.

STUDY

DESIGN

Retrospective.

OBJECTIVES

To report and compare the application of robotic-assisted navigation with an O-arm or three-dimensional (3D) C-arm-assisted pedicle screw insertion in scoliosis surgery, and compare with free-hand technique.

METHODS

One hundred and forty-four scoliosis patients were included in this study. Ninety-two patients underwent robotic-assisted pedicle screw insertion (Group A), and 52 patients underwent freehand fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion (Group B). Group A was further divided into Subgroup AI (n = 48; robotic-assisted navigation with an O-arm) and Subgroup AII (n = 44; robotic-assisted navigation with a 3D C-arm). The evaluated clinical outcomes were operation time, blood loss, radiation exposure, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications. The clinical outcomes, coronal and sagittal scoliosis parameters and the accuracy of the pedicle screw placement were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in blood loss and postoperative hospital stay between Groups A and B (P = .406, P = .138, respectively). Radiation exposure for patients in Group A (Subgroups AI or AII) was higher than that in Group B (P < .005), and Subgroup AI had higher patient radiation exposure compared with Subgroup AII (P < .005). The operation time in Subgroup AII was significantly longer than that in Subgroup AI and Group B (P = .016, P = .032, respectively). The proportion of clinically acceptable screws was higher in Group A (Subgroups AI or AII) compared with Group B (P < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted navigation with an O-arm or 3D C-arm effectively increased the accuracy and safety in scoliosis surgery. Compared with robotic-assisted navigation with a 3D C-arm, robotic-assisted navigation with an O-arm was more efficient intraoperatively.