Robot-assisted intravertebral augmentation corrects local kyphosis more effectively than a conventional fluoroscopy-guided technique

Restricted access

OBJECTIVE

Intravertebral augmentation (IVA) is a reliable minimally invasive technique for treating Magerl type A vertebral body fractures. However, poor correction of kyphotic angulation, the risk of cement leakage, and significant exposure to radiation (for the surgeon, the operating room staff, and the patient) remain significant issues. The authors conducted a study to assess the value of robot-assisted IVA (RA-IVA) for thoracolumbar vertebral body fractures.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective, single-center study of patients who had undergone RA-IVA or conventional fluoroscopy-guided IVA (F-IVA) for thoracolumbar vertebral body fractures. Installation and operating times, guidance accuracy, residual local kyphosis, degree of restoration of vertebral body height, incidence of cement leakage, rate of morbidity, length of hospital stay, and radiation-related data were recorded.

RESULTS

Data obtained in 30 patients who underwent RA-IVA were compared with those obtained in 30 patients who underwent F-IVA during the same period (the surgical indications were identical, but the surgeons were different). The mean ± SD installation time in the RA-IVA group (24 ± 7.5 minutes) was significantly shorter (p = 0.005) than that in the F-IVA group (26 ± 8 minutes). The mean operating time for the RA-IVA group (52 ± 11 minutes) was significantly longer (p = 0.026) than that for the F-IVA group (30 ± 11 minutes). All RA-IVAs and F-IVAs were Ravi’s scale grade A (no pedicle breach). The mean degree of residual local kyphosis (4.7° ± 3.15°) and the percentage of vertebral body height restoration (63.6% ± 21.4%) were significantly better after RA-IVA than after F-IVA (8.4° ± 5.4° and 30% ± 34%, respectively). The incidence of cement leakage was significantly lower in the RA-IVA group (p < 0.05). The mean length of hospital stay after surgery was 3.2 days for both groups. No surgery-related complications occurred in either group. With RA-IVA, the mean radiation exposure was 438 ± 147 mGy × cm for the patient and 30 ± 17 mGy for the surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

RA-IVA provided better vertebral body fracture correction than the conventional F-IVA. However, RA-IVA requires more time than F-IVA.

ABBREVIATIONS F-IVA = fluoroscopy-guided intravertebral augmentation; fpCT = flat-panel CT; IVA = intravertebral augmentation; LOS = length of hospital stay; NS = not significant; PMMA = polymethylmethacrylate; RA-IVA = robot-assisted IVA; VAS = visual analog scale.

Article Information

Correspondence Michel Lefranc: Amiens Picardie University Medical Center, Amiens, France. lefrancm@me.com.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online November 30, 2018; DOI: 10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18197.

Disclosures Dr. Lefranc reports being a consultant for Zimmer Biomet.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Sagittal CT scans obtained before and after surgery. Figure is available in color online only.

  • View in gallery

    Illustration of the RA-IVA technique. A: The 3D trajectory for bilateral transpedicular K-wire placement is planned. B: A hole was drilled through each pedicle using real-time robotic guidance; the robot is able to track the movements of the patient’s body in real time. The K-wire was passed through the skin and the pedicle, and was then tapped into the anterior part of the vertebral body. C and D: Implant insertion/expansion and PMMA cement injection were guided by the fluoroscopy mode of the fpCT scanner. Figure is available in color online only.

  • View in gallery

    Illustration of K-wire insertion thanks to robotic assistance. The robot is placed along the planned trajectory. A reducer is placed along the trajectory with regard to the pedicle entry point. The K-wire is passed through the reducer through the skin and pedicle and is navigated into the anterior part of the vertebral body. Figure is available in color online only.

References

1

Barzilay YSchroeder JEHiller NSinger GHasharoni ASafran O: Robot-assisted vertebral body augmentation: a radiation reduction tool. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:1531572014

2

Capel CFichten ANicot BLefranc MToussaint PDesenclos C: Should we fear cement leakage during kyphoplasty in percutaneous traumatic spine surgery? A single experience with 76 consecutive cases. Neurochirurgie 60:2932982014

3

Chenin LCapel CFichten APeltier JLefranc M: Evaluation of screw placement accuracy in circumferential lumbar arthrodesis using robotic assistance and intraoperative flat-panel computed tomography. World Neurosurg 105:86942017

4

Chenin LPeltier JLefranc M: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with the ROSA(TM) Spine robot and intraoperative flat-panel CT guidance. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 158:112511282016

5

de Falco RBocchetti A: Balloon kyphoplasty for pure traumatic thoracolumbar fractures: retrospective analysis of 61 cases focusing on restoration of vertebral height. Eur Spine J 23 (Suppl 6):6646702014

6

Delmas ADepreux R: [Spinal curves and intervertebral foramina.] Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic 20:25291953 (Fr)

7

Gelalis IDPaschos NKPakos EEPolitis ANArnaoutoglou CMKarageorgos AC: Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 21:2472552012

8

Hartmann FGercek ELeiner LRommens PM: Kyphoplasty as an alternative treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures Magerl type A3. Injury 43:4094152012

9

Hiwatashi AWestesson PLAYoshiura TNoguchi TTogao OYamashita K: Kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty produce the same degree of height restoration. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30:6696732009

10

Izadpanah KKonrad GSüdkamp NPOberst M: Computer navigation in balloon kyphoplasty reduces the intraoperative radiation exposure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:132513292009

11

Krüger AOberkircher LFigiel JFloßdorf FBolzinger FNoriega DC: Height restoration of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures using different intravertebral reduction devices: a cadaveric study. Spine J 15:109210982015

12

Lefranc MPeltier J: Accuracy of thoracolumbar transpedicular and vertebral body percutaneous screw placement: coupling the Rosa® Spine robot with intraoperative flat-panel CT guidance—a cadaver study. J Robot Surg 9:3313382015

13

Lefranc MPeltier J: Evaluation of the ROSA™ Spine robot for minimally invasive surgical procedures. Expert Rev Med Devices 13:8999062016

14

Marcus HJCundy TPNandi DYang G-ZDarzi A: Robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 23:2912972014

15

McLain RF: Functional outcomes after surgery for spinal fractures: return to work and activity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:470477 Z62004

16

Mroz TEYamashita TDavros WJLieberman IH: Radiation exposure to the surgeon and the patient during kyphoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:961002008

17

Noriega DCRamajo RHLite ISToribio BCorredera RArdura F: Safety and clinical performance of kyphoplasty and SpineJack® procedures in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a pilot, monocentric, investigator-initiated study. Osteoporos Int 27:204720552016

18

Nussbaum DAGailloud PMurphy K: A review of complications associated with vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty as reported to the Food and Drug Administration medical device related web site. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:118511922004

19

Ravi BZahrai ARampersaud R: Clinical accuracy of computer-assisted two-dimensional fluoroscopy for the percutaneous placement of lumbosacral pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:84912011

20

Riis JLehman RRPerera RAQuinn JRRinehart PTuten HR: A retrospective comparison of intraoperative CT and fluoroscopy evaluating radiation exposure in posterior spinal fusions for scoliosis. Patient Saf Surg 11:322017

21

Rotter RSchmitt LGierer PSchmitz KPNoriega DMittlmeier T: Minimum cement volume required in vertebral body augmentation—a biomechanical study comparing the permanent SpineJack device and balloon kyphoplasty in traumatic fracture. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 30:7207252015

22

Srinivasan DThan KDWang ACLa Marca FWang PISchermerhorn TC: Radiation safety and spine surgery: systematic review of exposure limits and methods to minimize radiation exposure. World Neurosurg 82:133713432014

23

Walter JHaciyakupoglu EWaschke AKalff REwald C: Cement leakage as a possible complication of balloon kyphoplasty—is there a difference between osteoporotic compression fractures (AO type A1) and incomplete burst fractures (AO type A3.1)? Acta Neurochir (Wien) 154:3133192012

TrendMD

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 85 85 85
Full Text Views 22 22 22
PDF Downloads 27 27 27
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar