Study design:

Meta-analysis and systematic review.

Background:

Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement technique offers greater accuracy than the traditional freehand screw placement technique. However, it is controversial whether there is a difference between the two procedures in terms of improved clinical outcomes.

Materials and methods:

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science to identify potentially eligible articles. Indispensable data such as the year of publication, study type, age, number of patients, sex distribution, and outcomes were extracted. The outcome indicators of interest included Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) score, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and post-operative length of stay. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for the meta-analysis.

Results:

A total of eight studies with 508 participants were included. Eight were related to ΔVAS, six were related to ΔODI, seven were related to operative time, five were related to intraoperative blood loss, and seven were related to the length of hospitalization. The results showed that, in terms of ΔVAS (95% CI, -1.20 to -0.36, P = 0.0003) and ΔODI (95% CI, -2.50 to -0.48, P = 0.004), robot-assisted pedicle screw placement technique scored higher than traditional freehand technique. Additionally, the intraoperative blood loss (95% CI, -140.34 to -10.94, P = 0.02) and the length of hospitalization (95% CI, -2.59 to -0.31, P = 0.01) for patients who underwent robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement were less than that of those who underwent the conventional freehand screw placement. No significant difference was found between robot-assisted techniques and conventional freehand techniques in pedicle screw placement in surgical time (95% CI, -2.24 to 26.32, P = 0.10).

Conclusions:

Robot-assisted technique helps improve short-term clinical outcomes, reduce intraoperative blood loss and patient suffering, and shorten recovery time compared to the freehand technique.