Cargando…

Perspective on robotic spine surgery: Who’s doing the thinking?

BACKGROUND: Robotic assisted (RA) spine surgery was developed to reduce the morbidity for misplaced thoracolumbar (TL) pedicle screws (PS) resulting in neurovascular injuries, dural fistulas, and/or visceral/other injuries. RA is gaining the attention of spine surgeons to optimize the placement of T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Epstein, Nancy E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Scientific Scholar 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8571344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34754570
http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_931_2021
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Robotic assisted (RA) spine surgery was developed to reduce the morbidity for misplaced thoracolumbar (TL) pedicle screws (PS) resulting in neurovascular injuries, dural fistulas, and/or visceral/other injuries. RA is gaining the attention of spine surgeons to optimize the placement of TL PSs, and to do this more safely/effectively versus utilizing stereotactic navigation alone, or predominantly free hand (FH) techniques. However, little attention is being focused on whether a significant number of these TL RA instrumented fusions are necessary. METHODS: RA spine surgery has been developed to improve the safety, efficacy, and accuracy of minimally invasive TL versus open FH PS placement. RESULTS: Theoretical benefits of RA spine surgery include; enhanced accuracy of screw placement, fewer complications, less radiation exposure, smaller incisions, to minimize blood loss, reduce infection rates, shorten operative times, reduce postoperative recovery periods, and shorten lengths of stay. Cons of RA include; increased cost, increased morbidity with steep learning curves, robotic failures of registration, more soft tissue injuries, lateral skiving of drill guides, displacement of robotic arms impacting accurate PS placement, higher reoperation rates, and potential loss of accuracy with motion versus FH techniques. Notably, insufficient attention has been focused on the necessity for performing many of these TL PS instrumented fusions in the first place. CONCLUSION: RA spinal surgery is still in its infancy, and comparison of RA versus FH techniques for TL PS placement demonstrates several potential pros, but also multiple cons. Further, more attention must be focused on whether many of these TL PS instrumented procedures are even warranted.