Neurospine.  2023 Mar;20(1):329-339. 10.14245/ns.2244952.476.

Robotics in Cervical Spine Surgery: Feasibility and Safety of Posterior Screw Placement

• Zhou LP
• Zhang ZG
• Li D
• Fang S
• Sheng R
• Zhang RJ
• Shen CL

• KMID: 2540897
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2244952.476

Abstract

Objective
Robot-assisted (RA) techniques have been widely investigated in thoracolumbar spine surgery. However, the application of RA methods on cervical spine surgery is rare due to the complex morphology of cervical vertebrae and catastrophic complications. Thus, the feasibility and safety of RA cervical screw placement remain controversial. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RA screw placement on cervical spine surgery.
Methods
A comprehensive search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase Database, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, and Wanfang Database was performed to select potential eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparative cohort studies, and case series reporting the accuracy of cervical screw placement were included. The Cochrane risk of bias criteria and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria were utilized to rate the risk of bias of the included literatures. The primary outcome was the rate of cervical screw placement accuracy with robotic guidance; subgroup analyses based on the screw type and insertion segments were also performed.
Results
One RCT, 3 comparative cohort studies, and 3 case series consisting of 160 patients and 719 cervical screws were included in this meta-analysis. The combined outcomes indicated that the rates of optimal and clinically acceptable cervical screw placement accuracy under robotic guidance were 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.1%–91.4%; p = 0.073; I² = 47.941%) and 98.4% (95% CI, 96.8%–99.5%; p = 0.167; I² = 35.954%). The subgroup analyses showed that the rate of optimal pedicle screw placement accuracy was 88.2% (95% CI, 83.1%–92.6%; p = 0.057; I² = 53.305%); the rates of optimal screw placement accuracy on C1, C2, and subaxial segments were 96.2% (95% CI, 80.5%–100.0%; p = 0.167; I² = 44.134X%), 89.7% (95% CI, 80.6%–96.6%; p = 0.370; I² = 0.000X%), and 82.6% (95% CI, 70.9%–91.9%; p = 0.057; I² = 65.127X%;), respectively.
Conclusion
RA techniques were associated with high rates of optimal and clinically acceptable screw positions. RA cervical screw placement is accurate, safe, and feasible in cervical spine surgery with promising clinical potential.

Keyword

Robot; Cervical vertebrae; Accuracy; Spinal surgery; Meta-analysis