Comparison of accuracy and safety between robot-assisted and conventional fluoroscope assisted placement of pedicle screws in thoracolumbar spine: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the screw positioning accuracy, complications related to pedicle screw implantation, revision rate and radiation exposure between robot screw placement and traditional fluoroscopic screw placement. METHODS: We searched several databases, including CNKI, Wanfang database, cqvip datebase, PubMed, Cochrane library and EMBASE, to identify articles that might meet the criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of 13 randomized controlled trial were included. The results showed that the pedicle screw accuracy of the robot assisted group was significantly better than that of the conventional freehand (FH) group (OR = 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] [2.75,4.45], P < .0001). There was no significant difference in the complications caused by pedicle screw implantation between the robot-assisted group and the conventional FH group [OR = 0.39, 95%CI (0.10,1.48), P = .17]. The rate of facet joint invasion in the robot-assisted group was significantly lower than that in the conventional FH group (OR = 0.06, 95%CI [0.01,0.29], P = .0006). The revision rate in the robot-assisted group was significantly lower than that in the conventional FH group (OR = 0.19, 95%CI [0.05,0.71], P = 0.0.01). There was no significant difference in the average radiation of pedicle screws implantation between the robot-assisted group and the conventional FH (mean difference = -7.94, 95%CI [-20.18,4.30], P = .20). CONCLUSION: The robot-assisted group was significantly better than the conventional FH in the accuracy of pedicle screw placement and facet joint invasion rate and revision rate. There was no significant difference in the complication and fluoroscopy time between the two groups.