Accuracy and clinical characteristics of robot-assisted cervical spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: International orthopaedics Vol. 48; no. 7; pp. 1903 - 1914
• Main Authors: Wu, Jiayuan, Fan, Mingxing, He, Da, Wei, Yi, Duan, Fangfang, Jiang, Xieyuan, Tian, Wei
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.07.2024
• Subjects: Bone Screws; Cervical Vertebrae - surgery; Humans; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Orthopedics; Pedicle Screws; Review; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation; Spinal Fusion - methods; Treatment Outcome; Accuracy; Conventional freehand; Cervical spine surgery; Robot-assisted; Meta-analysis
• ISSN: 0341-2695; 1432-5195; 1432-5195
• DOI: 10.1007/s00264-024-06179-4

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy and feasibility of robot-assisted cervical screw placement and factors that may affect the accuracy. Methods A comprehensive search was made on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang Med for the selection of potential eligible literature. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of the relative risk (RR) or standardized mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses of the accuracy of screw placement at different cervical segments and with different screw placement approaches were performed. A comparison was made between robotic navigation and conventional freehand cervical screw placement. Results Six comparative cohort studies and five case series studies with 337 patients and 1342 cervical screws were included in this study. The perfect accuracy was 86% (95% CI, 82–89%) and the clinically acceptable rate was 98% (95% CI, 95–99%) in robot-assisted cervical screw placement. The perfect accuracy of robot-assisted C1 lateral mass screw placement was the highest (96%), followed by C6-7 pedicle screw placement (93%) and C2 pedicle screw placement (86%), and the lowest was C3-5 pedicle screw placement (75%). The open approach had a higher perfect accuracy than the percutaneous/intermuscular approach (91% vs 83%). Compared with conventional freehand cervical screw placement, robot-assisted cervical screw placement had a higher accuracy, a lower incidence of perioperative complications, and less intraoperative blood loss. Conclusion With good collaboration between the operator and the robot, robot-assisted cervical screw placement is accurate and feasible. Robot-assisted cervical screw placement has a promising prospect.