首页> 外文期刊>Cureus. >Retrospective Review on Accuracy: A Pilot Study of Robotically Guided Thoracolumbar/Sacral Pedicle Screws Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided and Computerized Tomography Stealth-Guided Screws
【24h】

Retrospective Review on Accuracy: A Pilot Study of Robotically Guided Thoracolumbar/Sacral Pedicle Screws Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided and Computerized Tomography Stealth-Guided Screws

机译:准确性的回顾性审查:机器人引导的胸腰椎/ S椎椎弓根螺钉与透视引导的计算机断层扫描和计算机断层扫描引导的螺钉的先导研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Introduction Pedicle screw insertion is the mainstay of thoracic and lumbosacral posterior spinal instrumentation. However, it may be associated with complications such as screw malpositioning. The purpose of this study was to develop a pilot study to compare the accuracy of robot-guided screw insertion versus hand-guided screw placement for spinal instrumentation. The hand-guided screws were placed with assistance from computerized tomography (CT) stealth guidance or fluoroscopy. Materials and methods A retrospective analysis of medical records was done for all patients that had pedicle screw insertion for instrumentation between the dates of December 2013 and January 2016 with post-screw placement CT imaging. The analysis was conducted on screw accuracy between the two categories based on the Gertzbein-Robbins classification. Results A total of 49 screws were analyzed for accuracy in six patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the?accuracy of hand-placed pedicle screws versus the robotically placed screws (p = 0.311). There was no statistically significant difference in blood loss (p = 0.616), length of procedure (p = 0.192), or post-operative length of stay (p = 0.587). Conclusion The findings of our pilot study agree with most prior studies that there was no statistically significant difference in the accuracy of pedicle screw placement between the two methods of screw placement. Therefore, the techniques are equivocal in accuracy. The new technology (robotic-guidance) is as safe as conventional techniques for screw placement. Just like in any surgery, the technique preference should remain surgeon dependent. The results are only from a small sample size in the development of a pilot study so a strong reliance on the data would not be suggested. The study was a preliminary study that will be used as a template and learning process to create a future prospective study to investigate CT stealth and robotically guided screw placement versus?“free hand” guided screws.
机译:简介椎弓根螺钉插入是胸椎和腰s后路脊柱器械的支柱。但是,它可能与诸如螺钉定位错误之类的并发症有关。这项研究的目的是开展一项初步研究,以比较用于脊柱器械的机器人引导螺钉插入与手动引导螺钉放置的准确性。在计算机断层扫描(CT)隐形引导或荧光检查的帮助下放置手动螺钉。材料和方法对2013年12月至2016年1月之间使用椎弓根螺钉置入CT成像的所有椎弓根螺钉置入器械的患者进行了医疗记录的回顾性分析。根据Gertzbein-Robbins分类对两类之间的螺丝精度进行了分析。结果共对49颗螺钉进行了6例患者的准确性分析。手工放置的椎弓根螺钉与机器人放置的螺钉的准确性之间没有统计学上的显着差异(p = 0.311)。失血量(p = 0.616),手术时间(p = 0.192)或术后住院时间(p = 0.587)差异无统计学意义。结论我们的初步研究结果与大多数以前的研究相吻合,两种螺钉置入方法之间的椎弓根螺钉置入准确性没有统计学上的显着差异。因此,这些技术在准确性上是模棱两可的。新技术(机器人引导)与传统的螺钉放置技术一样安全。就像在任何外科手术中一样,技术偏好应始终取决于外科医生。结果仅来自进行初步研究时的小样本量,因此不会建议强烈依赖数据。该研究是一项初步研究,将用作模板和学习过程,以创建未来的前瞻性研究,以研究CT隐身和机器人引导的螺钉放置与“徒手”引导的螺钉。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号