...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine. >Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: A matched cohort comparison - Clinical article
【24h】

Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: A matched cohort comparison - Clinical article

机译:机器人辅助与透视引导下椎弓根螺钉置入术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的安全性和准确性:同类对照研究-临床文章

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Object. Recent years have been marked by efforts to improve the quality and safety of pedicle screw placement in spinal instrumentation. The aim of the present study is to compare the accuracy of the SpineAssist robot system with conventional fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement. Methods. Ninety-five patients suffering from degenerative disease and requiring elective lumbar instrumentation were included in the study. The robot cohort (Group I; 55 patients, 244 screws) consisted of an initial open robotassisted subgroup (Subgroup IA; 17 patients, 83 screws) and a percutaneous cohort (Subgroup IB, 38 patients, 161 screws). In these groups, pedicle screws were placed under robotic guidance and lateral fluoroscopic control. In the fluoroscopy-guided cohort (Group II; 40 patients, 163 screws) screws were inserted using anatomical landmarks and lateral fluoroscopic guidance. The primary outcome measure was accuracy of screw placement on the Gertzbein- Robbins scale (Grade A to E and R [revised]). Secondary parameters were duration of surgery, blood loss, cumulative morphine, and length of stay. Results. In the robot group (Group I), a perfect trajectory (A) was observed in 204 screws (83.6%). The remaining screws were graded B (n = 19 [7.8%]), C (n = 9 [3.7%]), D (n = 4 [1.6%]), E (n = 2 [0.8%]), and R ( n = 6 [2.5%]). In the fluoroscopy-guided group (Group II), a completely intrapedicular course graded A was found in 79.8% (n = 130). The remaining screws were graded B (n = 12 [7.4%]), C (n = 10 [6.1%]), D (n = 6 [3.7%]), and E (n = 5 [3.1%]). The comparison of "clinically acceptable" (that is, A and B screws) was neither different between groups (I vs II [p = 0.19]) nor subgroups (Subgroup IA vs IB [p = 0.81]; Subgroup IA vs Group II [p = 0.53]; Subgroup IB vs Group II [p = 0.20]). Blood loss was lower in the robot-assisted group than in the fluoroscopy-guided group, while duration of surgery, length of stay, and cumulative morphine dose were not statistically different. Conclusions. Robotguided pedicle screw placement is a safe and useful tool for assisting spine surgeons in degenerative spine cases. Nonetheless, technical difficulties remain and fluoroscopy backup is advocated.
机译:目的。近年来,为改善脊柱器械中椎弓根螺钉置入的质量和安全性做出了努力。本研究的目的是比较SpineAssist机器人系统与常规透视引导下椎弓根螺钉放置的准确性。方法。该研究包括了九十五名患有退行性疾病且需要选择性腰椎器械治疗的患者。机器人队列(I组; 55名患者,244颗螺钉)由最初的开放式机器人辅助亚组(IA组; 17例,83颗螺钉)和经皮队列(IB组,38名患者,161颗螺钉)组成。在这些组中,将椎弓根螺钉置于机器人的引导和荧光透视控制下。在透视引导下的队列(II组; 40例患者,163颗螺钉)中,使用解剖标志物和侧向透视引导下插入螺钉。主要结果指标是在Gertzbein-Robbins量表(等级A至E和R [修订])上螺钉放置的准确性。次要参数是手术时间,失血量,吗啡累积量和住院时间。结果。在机器人组(I组)中,在204颗螺钉(83.6%)中观察到了完美的轨迹(A)。其余螺钉的等级为B(n = 19 [7.8%]),C(n = 9 [3.7%]),D(n = 4 [1.6%]),E(n = 2 [0.8%])和R(n = 6 [2.5%])。在透视引导下的组(第二组)中,发现完全分级的椎弓内课程为A级的占79.8%(n = 130)。其余螺钉的等级为B(n = 12 [7.4%]),C(n = 10 [6.1%]),D(n = 6 [3.7%])和E(n = 5 [3.1%])。组(I vs II [p = 0.19])和亚组(IA组vs IB组[p = 0.81]; IA组vs II组[临床上可接受的”(即A和B螺钉)的比较均无差异。 p = 0.53]; IB组vs II组[p = 0.20])。机器人辅助组的失血量少于透视引导下的组,而手术时间,住院时间和吗啡累积剂量无统计学差异。结论。机器人引导的椎弓根螺钉放置是在退行性脊柱病例中协助脊柱外科医生的安全且有用的工具。尽管如此,仍然存在技术难题,因此提倡荧光镜检查。

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