Ninety-day complication, revision, and readmission rates for current-generation robot-assisted thoracolumbar spinal fusion surgery: results of a multicenter case series

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami, Florida;
  • | 2 Department of Neurosurgery, University at Buffalo, New York;
  • | 3 Virginia Spine Institute, Reston, Virginia;
  • | 4 Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, Kentucky;
  • | 5 Northwest NeuroSpecialists, Tucson, Arizona;
  • | 6 Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
  • | 7 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia;
  • | 8 Department of Neurosurgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California; and
  • | 9 The Robotic Spine Institute of Las Vegas, Nevada
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

Robotics is a major area for research and development in spine surgery. The high accuracy of robot-assisted placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws is documented in the literature. The authors present the largest case series to date evaluating 90-day complication, revision, and readmission rates for robot-assisted spine surgery using the current generation of robotic guidance systems.

METHODS

An analysis of a retrospective, multicenter database of open and minimally invasive thoracolumbar instrumented fusion surgeries using the Mazor X or Mazor X Stealth Edition robotic guidance systems was performed. Patients 18 years of age or older and undergoing primary or revision surgery for degenerative spinal conditions were included. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate rates of malpositioned screws requiring revision, as well as overall complication, revision, and readmission rates within 90 days.

RESULTS

In total, 799 surgical cases (Mazor X: 48.81%; Mazor X Stealth Edition: 51.19%) were evaluated, involving robot-assisted placement of 4838 pedicle screws. The overall intraoperative complication rate was 3.13%. No intraoperative implant-related complications were encountered. Postoperatively, 129 patients suffered a total of 146 complications by 90 days, representing an incidence of 16.1%. The rate of an unrecognized malpositioned screw resulting in a new postoperative radiculopathy requiring revision surgery was 0.63% (5 cases). Medical and pain-related complications unrelated to hardware placement accounted for the bulk of postoperative complications within 90 days. The overall surgical revision rate at 90 days was 6.63% with 7 implant-related revisions, representing an implant-related revision rate of 0.88%. The 90-day readmission rate was 7.13% with 2 implant-related readmissions, representing an implant-related readmission rate of 0.25% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this multicenter case series and literature review suggest current-generation robotic guidance systems are associated with low rates of intraoperative and postoperative implant-related complications, revisions, and readmissions at 90 days. Future outcomes-based studies are necessary to evaluate complication, revision, and readmission rates compared to conventional surgery.

ABBREVIATIONS

GR = Gertzbein and Robbins; Mazor XSE = Mazor X Stealth Edition.

Illustration from Lee et al. (pp 822–829). Copyright Sun Joo Kim. Published with permission.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    510(k) Premarket Notification—SpineAssist Device. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Accessed September 16, 2021. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm?ID=K033413

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Larson AN, Polly DW Jr, Ackerman SJ, Ledonio CG, Lonner BS, Shah SA, et al. What would be the annual cost savings if fewer screws were used in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treatment in the US? J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(1):116123.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Yu L, Chen X, Margalit A, Peng H, Qiu G, Qian W. Robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery—a systematic review and a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int J Med Robot. 2018;14(3):e1892.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Staartjes VE, Klukowska AM, Schröder ML. Pedicle screw revision in robot-guided, navigated, and freehand thoracolumbar instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018;116:433443.e8.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Siccoli A, Klukowska AM, Schröder ML, Staartjes VE. A systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative parameters in robot-guided, navigated, and freehand thoracolumbar pedicle screw instrumentation. World Neurosurg. 2019;127:576587.e5.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Joseph JR, Smith BW, Liu X, Park P. Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E2.

  • 7

    Martin BI, Mirza SK, Spina N, Spiker WR, Lawrence B, Brodke DS. Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs for degenerative spinal diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015.Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2019;44(5):369376.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Ver MLP, Gum JL, Crawford CH, Djurasovic M, Owens RK, Brown M, et al. Index episode-of-care propensity-matched comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) techniques: open traditional TLIF versus midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) versus robot-assisted MIDLIF. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;32(5):741747.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Jiang B, Pennington Z, Azad T, Liu A, Ahmed AK, Zygourakis CC, et al. Robot-assisted versus freehand instrumentation in short-segment lumbar fusion: experience with real-time image-guided spinal robot. World Neurosurg. 2020;136:e635e645.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Kochanski RB, Lombardi JM, Laratta JL, Lehman RA, O’Toole JE. Image-guided navigation and robotics in spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2019;84(6):11791189.

  • 11

    Schatlo B, Molliqaj G, Cuvinciuc V, Kotowski M, Schaller K, Tessitore E. Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: a matched cohort comparison. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(6):636643.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Fichtner J, Hofmann N, Rienmüller A, Buchmann N, Gempt J, Kirschke JS, et al. Revision rate of misplaced pedicle screws of the thoracolumbar spine-comparison of three-dimensional fluoroscopy navigation with freehand placement: a systematic analysis and review of the literature. World Neurosurg. 2018;109:e24e32.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Idler C, Rolfe KW, Gorek JE. Accuracy of percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placement using the oblique or "owl’s-eye" view and novel guidance technology. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(4):509515.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Anderson DG, Samartzis D, Shen FH, Tannoury C. Percutaneous instrumentation of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Orthop Clin North Am. 2007;38(3):401408,vii.

  • 15

    Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, Kim HJ. Minimally invasive robotic versus open fluoroscopic-guided spinal instrumented fusions: a randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2017;42(6):353358.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Kim HJ, Jung WI, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kang KT, Yeom JS. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(3):e1779.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Fayed I, Tai A, Triano M, Sayah A, Makariou E, Voyadzis JM, Sandhu FA. Robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement: evaluation of accuracy of the first 100 screws and comparison with cohort of fluoroscopy-guided screws. World Neurosurg. 2020;143:e492e502.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Jain D, Manning J, Lord E, Protopsaltis T, Kim Y, Buckland AJ, et al. Initial single-institution experience with a novel robotic-navigation system for thoracolumbar pedicle screw and pelvic screw placement with 643 screws. Int J Spine Surg. 2019;13(5):459463.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Huntsman KT, Ahrendtsen LA, Riggleman JR, Ledonio CG. Robotic-assisted navigated minimally invasive pedicle screw placement in the first 100 cases at a single institution. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(1):199203.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Godzik J, Walker CT, Hartman C, de Andrada B, Morgan CD, Mastorakos G, et al. A quantitative assessment of the accuracy and reliability of robotically guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement: technique and application accuracy. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2019;17(4):389395.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Vardiman AB, Wallace DJ, Crawford NR, Riggleman JR, Ahrendtsen LA, Ledonio CG. Pedicle screw accuracy in clinical utilization of minimally invasive navigated robot-assisted spine surgery. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(3):409413.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Benech CA, Perez R, Benech F, Greeley SL, Crawford N, Ledonio C. Navigated robotic assistance results in improved screw accuracy and positive clinical outcomes: an evaluation of the first 54 cases. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(3):431437.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    O’Connor TE, O’Hehir MM, Khan A, Mao JZ, Levy LC, Mullin JP, Pollina J. Mazor X Stealth robotic technology: a technical note. World Neurosurg. 2021;145:435442.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Pham MH, Plonsker J, Diaz-Aguilar LD, Osorio JA, Lehman RA. Simultaneous robotic single-position surgery with oblique lumbar interbody fusion with software planning: 2-dimensional operative video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2021;20(5):E363.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Buza JA III, Good CR, Lehman RA Jr, Pollina J, Chua RV, Buchholz AL, Gum JL. Robotic-assisted cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws using the Mazor X Stealth Edition (MXSE) system: workflow and technical tips for safe and efficient use. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(1):1323.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Pham MH, Osorio JA, Lehman RA. Navigated spinal robotics in minimally invasive spine surgery, with preoperative and intraoperative workflows: 2-dimensional operative video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2020;19(4):E422.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Pham MH, Diaz-Aguilar LD, King BH, Osorio JA, Lehman RA. Quad S2-alar-iliac screw fixation via navigated spinal robotics with software planning: 2-dimensional operative video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2020;19(5):E523.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Khan A, Meyers JE, Yavorek S, O’Connor TE, Siasios I, Mullin JP, Pollina J. Comparing next-generation robotic technology with 3-dimensional computed tomography navigation technology for the insertion of posterior pedicle screws. World Neurosurg. 2019;123:e474e481.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Khan A, Meyers JE, Siasios I, Pollina J. Next-generation robotic spine surgery: first report on feasibility, safety, and learning curve. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2019;17(1):6169.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Mao G, Gigliotti MJ, Myers D, Yu A, Whiting D. Single-surgeon direct comparison of O-arm neuronavigation versus Mazor X robotic-guided posterior spinal instrumentation. World Neurosurg. 2020;137:e278e285.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Ravi B, Zahrai A, Rampersaud R. Clinical accuracy of computer-assisted two-dimensional fluoroscopy for the percutaneous placement of lumbosacral pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2011;36(1):8491.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).1990;15(1):1114.

  • 33

    Mason A, Paulsen R, Babuska JM, Rajpal S, Burneikiene S, Nelson EL, Villavicencio AT. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(2):196203.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Lieber AM, Kirchner GJ, Kerbel YE, Khalsa AS. Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement fails to reduce overall postoperative complications in fusion surgery. Spine J. 2019;19(2):212217.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Yang DS, Li NY, Kleinhenz DT, Patel S, Daniels AH. Risk of postoperative complications and revision surgery following robot-assisted posterior lumbar spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2020;45(24):E1692E1698.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Malik AT, Drain JP, Karnes JM. Letter to the Editor regarding "Risk of postoperative complications and revision surgery following robot-assisted posterior lumbar spinal fusion". Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2021;46(6):E411E412.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Liounakos JI, Kumar V, Jamshidi A, Silman Z, Good CR, Schroerlucke SR, et al. Reduction in complication and revision rates for robotic-guided short-segment lumbar fusion surgery: results of a prospective, multi-center study. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(5):793802.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Kantelhardt SR, Martinez R, Baerwinkel S, Burger R, Giese A, Rohde V. Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(6):860868.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Schröder ML, Staartjes VE. Revisions for screw malposition and clinical outcomes after robot-guided lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E12.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Urakov TM, Chang KH, Burks SS, Wang MY. Initial academic experience and learning curve with robotic spine instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E4.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 72 72 72
Full Text Views 44 44 44
PDF Downloads 63 63 63
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0