North American Spine Society journal · 2026
Impact of a novel spine stabilization technique on intervertebral movement in cervical spine surgery using a humanoid surgical robotic system.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Friedlander Alon, Külling Fabrice, Ottens Sharon A, Bar Yossi, Camps Mullarach Xavier, Raabe Andreas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Navigation and robotic systems in spine surgery rely on the assumption that the spine behaves as a rigid body during surgery; however, intervertebral motion persists under typical intraoperative conditions. For robotic execution of hard-tissue procedures to be effective, the system must be capable of autonomously securing and stabilizing the target vertebra throughout the intervention.
METHODS: A cadaveric study was performed using 6 human cervical spine specimens. In part 1, C2-C7 vertebrae were instrumented with markers and subjected to robotically applied 30 N forces along planned pedicle screw trajectories, with and without robotic stabilization. Intervertebral motion was quantified using a 3D optical tracking system. In part 2, surgeons placed 30 cervical pedicle screws (C1-T1) using standard robot-assisted navigation and 36 screws using a novel FDA-cleared bi-manual 2-armed surgical robotic system incorporating autonomous vertebral stabilization and individual vertebra tracking. Screw accuracy was assessed by comparing planned and actual trajectories on postoperative 3D imaging.
RESULTS: Robotic stabilization reduced translational motion by up to 57.8% and rotational motion by up to 57.4% at the targeted level, with meaningful reductions at adjacent levels and diminishing effects with increasing distance. No major pedicle screw placement errors (>2 mm or >2°) were observed with stabilization. Mean angular error decreased by 31.7% (1.5 ± 1.2° vs. 1.0 ± 0.5°).
CONCLUSIONS: Bi-manual robotic stabilization significantly reduced intervertebral motion and improved pedicle screw placement accuracy. Targeted intraoperative stabilization may mitigate limitations associated with spinal nonrigidity in robotic-assisted navigation.
METHODS: A cadaveric study was performed using 6 human cervical spine specimens. In part 1, C2-C7 vertebrae were instrumented with markers and subjected to robotically applied 30 N forces along planned pedicle screw trajectories, with and without robotic stabilization. Intervertebral motion was quantified using a 3D optical tracking system. In part 2, surgeons placed 30 cervical pedicle screws (C1-T1) using standard robot-assisted navigation and 36 screws using a novel FDA-cleared bi-manual 2-armed surgical robotic system incorporating autonomous vertebral stabilization and individual vertebra tracking. Screw accuracy was assessed by comparing planned and actual trajectories on postoperative 3D imaging.
RESULTS: Robotic stabilization reduced translational motion by up to 57.8% and rotational motion by up to 57.4% at the targeted level, with meaningful reductions at adjacent levels and diminishing effects with increasing distance. No major pedicle screw placement errors (>2 mm or >2°) were observed with stabilization. Mean angular error decreased by 31.7% (1.5 ± 1.2° vs. 1.0 ± 0.5°).
CONCLUSIONS: Bi-manual robotic stabilization significantly reduced intervertebral motion and improved pedicle screw placement accuracy. Targeted intraoperative stabilization may mitigate limitations associated with spinal nonrigidity in robotic-assisted navigation.