Journals / Turkish Neurosurgery / 2014 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 4

Robotik Omurga Cerrahisi: Ön Klinik Rapor

Robotic Spine Surgery: A Preliminary Repor

Pages
512–518
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall mean procedure duration was 73.2 minutes for Group A and 46.1 minutes for Group B.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: Robotic spine surgery techniques provide reduced pedicle screw malposition and radiation exposure during surgery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:MATERIAL and METHODS: The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data for 27 patients were reviewed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall mean procedure duration was 73.2 minutes for Group A and 46.1 minutes for Group B.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

AIM: Robotic spine surgery techniques provide reduced pedicle screw malposition and radiation exposure during surgery. The aim of this study is to review clinical and radiological results of robotic spine surgery. MATERIAL and METHODS: The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data for 27 patients were reviewed. To reveal the effect of a learning curve, the cases were divided into two groups: Group A and Group B The clinical data and radiological data were compared with the values obtained from preoperative planning. RESULTS: The patients consisted of 23 females and 4 males. A total of 136 screws were placed in the 27 cases. The accuracy rate of the screw positions was 98.5%. The overall mean procedure duration was 73.2 minutes for Group A and 46.1 minutes for Group B. The overall mean x-ray exposure time per screw was 1.3 seconds, 1.8 seconds for Group A and 0.9 seconds for Group B. Postoperative imaging revealed that 126 screws were perfect, screw malposition of <2mm was observed for 8 screws, and malposition of >2mm was observed for 2 screws. CONCLUSION: Robotic spine surgery provides a high degree of accuracy for pedicle screw placement and allows for reduced radiation exposure.

Özet

AMAÇ: Robotik spinal cerrahi teknikleri pedikül vida malpozisyonu oranlarını ve alınan radyasyon miktarını düşürmüştür. Çalışmanın amacı, robotik spinal cerrahinin klinik ve radyolojik sonuçlarını gözden geçirmektir. yÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: Torakolomber stabilizasyon operasyonu yapılan 27 hasta preoperatif, intraoperatif ve postoperatif verileri kaydedildi. Öğrenme eğrisinine göre hastalar; grup A ve grup B olmak üzere ikiye ayrıldı, klinik ve radyolojik veriler, preoperatif ve postoperatif sonuçlarla karşılaştırıldı. BULGULAR: 23 erkek ve 4 kadından oluşan 27 olguda 136 pedikül vidası yerleştirildi. Vida pozisyon doğruluk oranı %98,5 idi. Tekniğin genel ortalama süresi 59,2 dakika, grup Anın süresi 73,2 dakika, grup Bnin süresi 46,1 dakika bulundu. Vida/X-ray maruziyet süresi oranı genel ortalama 1,3 saniye; grup Ada 1,8 saniye, grup Bde 0,9 saniye olarak saptandı. Postoperatif görüntülerde 126 vida mükemmel, sekiz vidada 2mmden az vida malpozisyonu, iki vidada 2mmden fazla vida malpozisyonu gözlemlendi. SONUÇ: Robotik spinal cerrahi pedikül vidalarının yerleştirilmesinde yüksek doğruluk oranları sağlamış, maruz kalınan radyasyon oranını önemli ölçüde düşürmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖNEN, M. R., ŞİMŞEK, M., NADERİ, S. (2014). Robotik Omurga Cerrahisi: Ön Klinik Rapor. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 4, 512–518. https://ajindex.com/articles/405470

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Barzilay Y, Liebergall M, Fridlander A, Knoller N: Miniature robotic guidance for spine surgery-introduction of a novel system and analysis of challenges encountered during the clinical development phase at two spine centres. Int J Med Robot 2:146-153, 2006 2. Burch S: Surgical complications of spinal deformity surgery. Neurosurg Clin N Am 18:385-392, 2007 3. Davne SH, Myers DL: Complications of lumbar spinal fusion stanbul Cerrahi Hastane with transpedicular instrumentation. Spine 17:184 -189, 1992 4. Devito DP, Kaplan L, Dietl R, Pfeiffer M, Horne D, Silberstein B, Hardenbrook M, Kiriyanthan G, Barzilay Y, Bruskin A, Sackerer D, Alexandrovsky V, Stüer C, Burger R, Maeurer J, Donald GD, Schoenmayr R, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Schmieder K, Pechlivanis I, Kim IS, Meyer B, Shoham M: Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with spine assist surgical robot. Spine 35:2109-2115,2010 5. Fransen P: Fluoroscopic exposure in modern spinal surgery. Acta Orthop Belg 77:386-389, 2011 6. Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE: Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 15:11-14, 1990 7. Gundestrup M, Storm HH: Radiationinduced acute myeloid leukaemia and other cancers in commercial jet cockpit crew: Apopulation-based cohort study. Lancet 354:2029-2031, 1999 8. Hicks JM, Singla A, Shen FH, Arlet V: Complications of pedicle screw fixation in scoliosis surgery a systematic review. Spine 35:465-470, 2010 9. Holly LT, Foley KT: Three-dimensional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement. Technical note. J Neurosurg 99: 324 -329, 2003 10. Hu X, Ohnmeiss DD, Lieberman IH: Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement: Lessons learned from the first 102 patients. Eur Spine J 22: 661-666, 2013 11. Kantelhardt SR, Martinez R, Baerwinkel S, Burger R, Giese A, Rohde V: Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutane- ous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J 20:860-868, 2011 12. Kaplan L: Robotic assisted vertebral cement augmentation: A major radiation reduction tool. Presented at: Aging Spine Symposium, March. Jerusalem, Israel, 2011 13. Klein SA, Glassman SD, Dimar JR 2nd, Voor MJ: Evaluation of the fixation and strength of a “rescue” revision pedicle screw. J Spinal Disord Tech 15: 100-104, 2002 14. Kosmopoulos V, Schizas C: Pedicle screw placement accuracy: A metaanalysis. Spine 32:111-120, 2007 15. Lieberman IH, Hardenbrook M, Wang JC, Guyer R, Khanna: