Robotic-assisted spine surgery allows for increased pedicle screw sizes while still improving safety as indicated by elevated triggered electromyographic thresholds

December 1, 2022

doi: 10.1007/s11701-022-01493-8.

Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Charles W Kanaly et al.

J Robot Surg.

2022.

doi: 10.1007/s11701-022-01493-8.

Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ Steward St. Anne’s Hospital, Fall River, MA, USA.
² Neurosurgery Center of Southern New England, PC, Fall River, MA, USA.
³ Musculoskeletal and Education Research Center, Audubon, PA, USA. [email protected].
⁴ Musculoskeletal and Education Research Center, Audubon, PA, USA.

Item in Clipboard

Abstract

The present study used triggered electromyographic (EMG) testing as a tool to determine the safety of pedicle screw placement. In this Institutional Review Board exempt review, data from 151 consecutive patients (100 robotic; 51 non-robotic) who had undergone instrumented spinal fusion surgery of the thoracic, lumbar, or sacral regions were analyzed. The sizes of implanted pedicle screws and EMG threshold data were compared between screws that were placed immediately before and after adoption of the robotic technique. The robotic group had significantly larger screws inserted that were wider (7 ± 0.7 vs 6.5 ± 0.3 mm; p < 0.001) and longer (47.8 ± 6.4 vs 45.7 ± 4.3 mm; p < 0.001). The robotic group also had significantly higher stimulation thresholds (34.0 ± 11.9 vs 30.2 ± 9.8 mA; p = 0.002) of the inserted screws. The robotic group stayed in the hospital postoperatively for fewer days (2.3 ± 1.2 vs 2.9 ± 2 days; p = 0.04), but had longer surgery times (174 ± 37.8 vs 146 ± 41.5 min; p < 0.001). This study demonstrated that the use of navigated, robot-assisted surgery allowed for placement of larger pedicle screws without compromising safety, as determined by pedicle screw stimulation thresholds. Future studies should investigate whether these effects become even stronger in a later cohort after surgeons have more experience with the robotic technique. It should also be evaluated whether the larger screw sizes allowed by the robotic technology actually translate into improved long-term clinical outcomes.

Keywords:

Posterior spinal fixation; Robotic-assisted spine surgery; Triggered EMG stimulation.

References

1. Perna F, Borghi R, Pilla F, Stefanini N, Mazzotti A, Chehrassan M (2016) Pedicle screw insertion techniques: an update and review of the literature. Musculoskelet Surg 100(3):165–169
  
  –
  
  DOI
  
  –
  
  PubMed
1. Gaines RW Jr (2000) The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82(10):1458–1476
  
  –
  
  DOI
  
  –
  
  PubMed
1. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A (2012) Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 21(6):1171–1177
  
  –
  
  DOI
  
  –
  
  PubMed
1. Zhou Y, Zhang C, Wang J, Chu TW, Li CQ, Zhang ZF, Zheng WJ (2008) Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar decompression, interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation-a report of 42 cases. Chin J Traumatol 11(4):225–231
  
  –
  
  DOI
  
  –
  
  PubMed
1. Kaiser MG, Eck JC, Groff MW, Watters WC 3rd, Dailey AT, Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Sharan A, Wang JC, Mummaneni PV et al (2014) Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 1: introduction and methodology. J Neurosurg Spine 21(1):2–6
  
  –
  
  DOI
  
  –
  
  PubMed