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
_version_ 1784594999410688000
author Epstein, Nancy E
author_facet Epstein, Nancy E
author_sort Epstein, Nancy E
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8571344
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Scientific Scholar
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85713442021-11-08 Perspective on robotic spine surgery: Who’s doing the thinking? Epstein, Nancy E Surg Neurol Int Review Article 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. Scientific Scholar 2021-10-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8571344/ /pubmed/34754570 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_931_2021 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Surgical Neurology International https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Review Article
Epstein, Nancy E
Perspective on robotic spine surgery: Who’s doing the thinking?
title Perspective on robotic spine surgery: Who’s doing the thinking?
title_full Perspective on robotic spine surgery: Who’s doing the thinking?
title_fullStr Perspective on robotic spine surgery: Who’s doing the thinking?
title_full_unstemmed Perspective on robotic spine surgery: Who’s doing the thinking?
title_short Perspective on robotic spine surgery: Who’s doing the thinking?
title_sort perspective on robotic spine surgery: who’s doing the thinking?
topic Review Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT epsteinnancye perspectiveonroboticspinesurgerywhosdoingthethinking