Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 21, 2026
06:24
A Spine Robotic-Assisted Navigation System for Pedicle Screw Placement
Published on: May 11, 2020
Pedicle screw insertion: robotic assistance versus conventional C-arm fluoroscopy
Constantin Schizas1, Eric Thein, Barbara Kwiatkowski
1Orthopaedic Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and The University of Lausanne, Switzerland. cschizas@hotmail.com
Acta Orthopaedica Belgica
|June 16, 2012
Summary
Robotically assisted pedicle screw placement showed similar accuracy to the conventional fluoroscopy-assisted freehand technique. This study found no significant difference in screw misplacement rates between the two methods for spinal fusion.
Area of Science:
- Spinal Surgery
- Orthopedic Technology
- Surgical Navigation
Background:
- Pedicle screw placement is crucial for spinal fusion stability.
- Robotic guidance systems aim to enhance surgical precision.
- Conventional freehand techniques rely on fluoroscopy.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the accuracy of robotically assisted pedicle screw placement versus conventional fluoroscopy-assisted freehand technique.
- To evaluate screw misplacement rates in both surgical approaches.
Main Methods:
- Prospective study comparing two groups: robotical (11 patients, 64 screws) and fluoroscopic (23 patients, 64 screws).
- Postoperative CT-scans assessed screw position using the Rampersaud A to D classification.
- Independent observers evaluated screw accuracy.
Main Results:
- No neurological complications were reported in either group.
- Grade A screws (within pedicle margins): 79% robotical vs. 83% fluoroscopic (p=0.8).
- Misplaced screws (Grade C & D): 4.7% robotical vs. 7.8% fluoroscopic (p=0.71).
Conclusions:
- Robotically assisted pedicle screw placement did not demonstrate superiority over the conventional fluoroscopy-assisted freehand technique in this study.
- Further research may be needed to clarify the role of robotic assistance in spinal surgery.
