Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 24, 2025
A Spine Robotic-Assisted Navigation System for Pedicle Screw Placement
Published on: May 11, 2020
Size selection and placement of pedicle screws using robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided techniques for
Sheng-Yang Du1,2, Jun Dai1, Zhen-Tao Zhou1
1Department of Orthopaedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 1055 Sanxiang Road, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Background:
There has been increased development of robotic technologies for the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement. However, it remains unclear whether the robot really optimize the selection of screw sizes and enhance screw stability. The purpose of this study is to compare the sizes (diameter and length), placement accuracy and the loosening rate of pedicle screws using robotic-assisted versus conventional fluoroscopy approaches for thoracolumbar fractures.
Methods:
A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate 70 consecutive patients [34 cases of robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (RAF) and 36 of conventional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (FGF)]. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and radiological features were recorded. Pedicle screw length, diameter, and pedicle screw placement accuracy were assessed. The patients' sagittal kyphosis Cobb angles (KCA), anterior vertebral height ratios (VHA), and screw loosening rate were evaluated by radiographic data 1 year after surgery.
Results:
There was no significant difference in the mean computed tomography (CT) Hounsfield unit (HU) values, operation duration, or length of hospital stay between the groups. Compared with the FGF group, the RAF group had a lower fluoroscopy frequency [14 (12-18) vs. 21 (16-25), P < 0.001] and a higher "grade A + B" pedicle screw placement rate (96.5% vs. 89.4%, P < 0.05). The mean screw diameter was 6.04 ± 0.55 mm in the RAF group and 5.78 ± 0.50 mm in the FGF group (P < 0.001). The mean screw length was 50.45 ± 4.37 mm in the RAF group and 48.63 ± 3.86 mm in the FGF group (P < 0.001). The correction loss of the KCA and VHR of the RAF group was less than that of the FGT group at the 1-year follow-up [(3.8 ± 1.8° vs. 4.9 ± 4.2°) and (5.5 ± 4.9% vs. 6.4 ± 5.7%)], and screw loosening occurred in 2 out of 34 patients (5.9%) in the RAF group, and 6 out of 36 patients (16.7%) in the FGF group, but there were no significant differences (P > 0.05).
Conclusion:
Compared with the fluoroscopy-guided technique, robotic-assisted spine surgery decreased radiation exposure and optimizes screw trajectories and dimensions intraoperatively. Although not statistically significant, the loosening rate of the RAF group was lower that of than the FGT group.
