Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 24, 2025
A Spine Robotic-Assisted Navigation System for Pedicle Screw Placement
Published on: May 11, 2020
Robot-assisted technique vs conventional freehand technique in spine surgery: A meta-analysis
Weiguang Fu1, Jie Tong2, Gang Liu1
1Department of Spinal Surgery, the 215 Hospital of shaanxi nuclear industry, Xianyang, China.
Background:
The impact of robot-assisted techniques versus conventional freehand techniques in terms of the accuracy of pedicle screw placement remains conflicting. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate this relationship.
Methods:
A systematic literature search up to July 2020 was performed and 15 studies were detected with 6041 pedicle screw placements with 2748 of them were using robot-assisted techniques and 3293 were conventional freehand techniques. They reported relationships between robot-assisted techniques and conventional freehand techniques in pedicle screw placement. Odds ratio (OR) or Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated comparing the robot-assisted techniques to conventional freehand techniques in pedicle screw placement risks using the dichotomous and continuous method with a random or fixed-effect model.
Results:
Robot-assisted techniques had a significantly higher screw position grade A in Gertzbein-Robbins classification of the screw placement accuracy (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.66-3.54, P < .001); shorter postoperative stay (MD, -0.67; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.19, P < .001); lower intraoperative blood loss (MD, -91.64; 95% CI, -152.44 to -30.83, P = .003); fewer intraoperative radiation dose (MD, -23.52; 95% CI, -40.12 to -6.0.93, P = .005); and low proximal facet violations (MD, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.20, P < .001) compared with conventional freehand techniques. However, no significant difference was found between robot-assisted techniques and conventional freehand techniques in surgical time (OR, 11.71; 95% CI, 03.27-26.70, P = .13); visual analogue scale scores (MD, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.54 to 0.23, P = .44); and Oswestry disability index scores (MD, 0.21; 95% CI, -5.09-5.51, P = .94).
Conclusions:
The extent of the improvement with robot-assisted techniques in screw position grade A in Gertzbein-Robbins classification of the screw placement accuracy, postoperative stay, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative radiation dose, and proximal facet violations was significantly better than conventional freehand techniques. This relationship forces us to recommend robot-assisted techniques for pedicle screw placement to avoid any possible negative postoperative results.
