Background:

K-wireless robotic pedicle screw instrumentation with navigation is a new technology with large potential. Barriers to adoption are added registration time with robotic-navigated system and reliable screw positioning. Understanding the learning curve and limitations is crucial for successful implementation. The purpose of this study was to describe a learning curve of k-wireless robotic assisted pedicle screw placement with navigation and compare to conventional techniques.

Methods:

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data of 65 consecutive adult patients underwent robotic-navigated posterior spinal fusion by a single spine surgeon. Registration, screw placement, and positioning times were recorded. All patients underwent intra-operative 3D fluoroscopy and screw trajectory was compared to pre-operative CT.

Results:

A total of 364 instrumented pedicles were planned robotically, 311 (85.4%) were placed robotically; 17 screws (4.7%) converted to k-wire, 21 (5.8%) converted to freehand, and 15 (4.1%) planned freehand. Of the 311 robotically placed pedicle screws, three dimensional fluoroscopic imaging showed 291 (93.5%) to be GRS Grade A in the axial plane (fully contained within the pedicle) and 281 (90.4%) were GRS Grade A in the sagittal plane. All breached screw deviations from plan were identified on 3D fluoroscopy during surgery and repositioned and confirmed by additional 3d fluoroscopy scan. Reasons for conversion included morphology of starting point (n=18), soft tissue pressure (n=9), hypoplastic pedicles (n=6), obstructive reference pin placement (n=2), and robotic arm issues (n=1). Seventeen (5.5%) critical breaches (≥2-4 mm) were recorded in 11 patients, 9 (2.9%) critical breaches were due to soft tissue pressure causing skive. Two patients experienced 6 (1.9%) critical breaches from hypoplastic pedicles, and 3 (0.9%) unplanned lateral breaches were found in another patient. One patient (0.3%) experienced skive due to morphology and spinal instability from isthmic spondylolisthesis. Imaging showed 143 screws placed medially to plan (1.2±0.9 mm), 170 lateral (1.2±1.1 mm), 193 screws caudal (1.0±0.6 mm) and 117 cranial (0.6±0.5 mm). No adverse clinical sequelae occurred from implantation of any screw.

Conclusions:

The learning curve showed improvement in screw times for the first several cases. Understanding the learning curve and situations where the robotic technique may be suboptimal can help guide the surgeon safe and effectively for adoption, as well as further refine these technologies.