新型可视化骨科机器人辅助与徒手开放腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定术的回顾性队列研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-7795.2024.05.010

首都医科大学学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (5): 808-814.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7795.2024.05.010

新型可视化骨科机器人辅助与徒手开放腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定术的回顾性队列研究

曾成,吴佳源,丁红涛,张宁,郎昭,何达^*

首都医科大学附属北京积水潭医院脊柱外科，北京 100035

收稿日期:2024-06-24 出版日期:2024-10-21 发布日期:2024-10-18
通讯作者: 何达 E-mail:hedamd@vip.163.com
基金资助:
北京市医院管理中心“登峰”计划项目(DFL20240401)。

A retrospective cohort study on comparison between a novel visualized orthopedic robot-assisted technique versus a free-hand technique of pedicle screw placement in the lumbar spine

Zeng Cheng, Wu Jiayuan, Ding Hongtao, Zhang Ning, Lang Zhao, He Da^*

Spine Department， Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100035, China

Received:2024-06-24 Online:2024-10-21 Published:2024-10-18
Supported by:
This study was supported by Beijing Hospitals Authority's Ascent Plan(DFL20240401).

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的研究新型可视化工具集成的骨科机器人系统，对比可视化机器人系统与传统徒手腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定术的置钉准确率和临床效果。方法回顾性分析43例可视化机器人系统辅助单节段腰椎管扩大减压植骨融合内固定术患者，匹配85例传统徒手置钉法患者为对照组。通过术后腰椎电子计算机断层扫描（computed tomography，CT）影像评估椎弓根螺钉的准确性，对比两组患者的置钉优良率、钉道调整次数、螺钉调整次数、视觉模拟评分（Visual Analogue Scale，VAS）改善指数，日本骨科协会（Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores，JOA评分）改善指数、手术时间，出血量、术后住院时间、术后并发症。结果机器人组置钉准确率显著高于对照组（P <0.05），钉道调整次数和螺钉调整次数均显著低于对照组（P <0.05），手术时间显著长于对照组（P <0.05），其余围术期参数与对照组差异无统计学意义（P >0.05）。结论新型可视化机器人系统辅助的置钉准确性显著优于徒手置钉，并可以减少重复调整钉道和重复置钉的次数。尽管其手术时间长于传统手术，但其临床疗效不劣于传统手术，且具有一次性置钉成功率高的优势。

关键词: 手术机器人, 腰椎, 椎弓根螺钉, 内固定

Abstract:

Objective To study a novel orthopedic robotic system integrated with visualized tool packages and to compare the screw accuracy and clinical outcomes of the visualization robotic system with those of the traditional free-hand lumbar pedicle screw fixation. Methods A total of 43 cases with visualized robot-assisted single-segment lumbar spinal canal decompression with fusion were retrospectively analyzed, matched with 85 cases with traditional free-hand pedicle screw placement as the control group. The accuracy of pedicle screws was evaluated on postoperative lumbar computed tomography (CT) images. The two groups were compared in terms of the number of pedicle track adjustments, the number of pedicle screw turnback, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the operative time, the amount of blood loss, the postoperative hospitalization time, and the postoperative complications. Results The accuracy of screw placement in the robotic group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.05), the number of pedicle track adjustments and screw turnback were significantly lower than that in the control group (P<0.05), and the operation time was significantly longer than that in the control group (P<0.05), while the other perioperative parameters were not significantly different from those in the control group (P>0.05). Conclusions The accuracy of pedicle screw placement assisted by the novel visualized robotic system was significantly better than that of free-hand screw placement, and it could reduce the number of repeated adjustments of the pedicle track and screw turnback. Although its operation time is longer than that of traditional surgery, its clinical efficacy is not inferior to that of traditional surgery, and it has more advantages and potentials.

Key words: robot assisted surgery, lumbar, pedicle screw, internal fixation

中图分类号:

R738.1

曾成, 吴佳源, 丁红涛, 张宁, 郎昭, 何达. 新型可视化骨科机器人辅助与徒手开放腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定术的回顾性队列研究[J]. 首都医科大学学报, 2024, 45(5): 808-814.

Zeng Cheng, Wu Jiayuan, Ding Hongtao, Zhang Ning, Lang Zhao, He Da. A retrospective cohort study on comparison between a novel visualized orthopedic robot-assisted technique versus a free-hand technique of pedicle screw placement in the lumbar spine[J]. Journal of Capital Medical University, 2024, 45(5): 808-814.

参考文献

［1］张天擎, 张希诺, 韩渤, 等. 皮质骨轨迹螺钉与椎弓根螺钉在后路胸腰椎融合术应用的Meta分析［J］. 首都医科大学学报, 2019, 40(4): 510－516.
［2］Li H M, Zhang R J, Shen C L. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement and clinical outcomes of robot-assisted technique versus conventional freehand technique in spine surgery from nine randomized controlled trials: a meta-analysis［J］. Spine, 2020, 45(2): E111-E119.
［3］Xu Y F, Zhang Q, Le X F, et al. Comparison of the one-time accuracy of simulated freehand and navigation simulated pedicle screw insertion［J］. World Neurosurg, 2019, 128: e347-e354.
［4］田伟, 范明星, 张琦, 等. 中国骨科手术机器人的发展［J］. 应用力学学报, 2023, 40(1): 1－6.
［5］阎凯, 张琦, 刘波, 等. 天玑Ⅱ机器人辅助胸腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定术的临床应用［J］. 北京生物医学工程, 2022, 41(3): 297－301.
［6］韩晓光, 张琦, 行勇刚, 等. 应用机器人辅助皮质骨螺钉固定技术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床效果［J］. 骨科临床与研究杂志, 2021, 6(4): 234－238.
［7］Tian W, Liu Y J, Liu B, et al. Guideline for thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement assisted by orthopaedic surgical robot［J］. Orthop Surg, 2019, 11(2): 153－159.
［8］Gertzbein S D, Robbins S E. Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo［J］. Spine, 1990, 15(1): 11－14.
［9］Azimi P R A, Mohammadi H R, Montazeri A. An outcome measure of functionality and pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation: a validation study of the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score［J］. J Orthop Sci, 2012, 17(4): 341－345.
［10］Fu W G, Tong J, Liu G, et al. Robot-assisted technique vs conventional freehand technique in spine surgery: A meta-analysis［J］. Int J Clin Pract, 2021, 75(5): e13964.
［11］Fan Y, Du J P, Liu J J, et al. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement comparing robot-assisted technology and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided method in spine surgery: An updated meta-analysis［J］. Medicine, 2018, 97(22): e10970.
［12］Fan Y, Du J P, Liu J J, et al. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement comparing robot-assisted technology and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided method in spine surgery: An updated meta-analysis［J］. Medicine, 2018, 97(22): e10970.
［13］Lee N J, Leung E, Buchanan I A, et al. A multicenter study of the 5-year trends in robot-assisted spine surgery outcomes and complications［J］. J Spine Surg, 2022, 8(1): 9－20.
［14］Zhang Q, Han X G, Xu Y F, et al. Robotic navigation during spine surgery［J］. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2020, 17(1): 27－32.
［15］Fan M X, Liu Y J, He D, et al. Improved accuracy of cervical spinal surgery with robot-assisted screw insertion: a prospective, randomized, controlled study［J］. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2020, 45(5): 285－291.
［16］Le X F, Tian W, Shi Z, et al. Robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw instrumentation in lumbar spinal surgery: a matched-cohort comparison［J］. World Neurosurg, 2018, 120: e745-e751.
［17］Feng S, Tian W, Sun Y Q, et al. Effect of robot-assisted surgery on lumbar pedicle screw internal fixation in patients with osteoporosis［J］. World Neurosurg, 2019, 125: e1057-e1062.
［18］Feng S, Tian W, Wei Y. Clinical effects of oblique lateral interbody fusion by conventional open versus percutaneous Robot-Assisted minimally invasive pedicle screw placement in elderly patients［J］. Orthop Surg, 2020, 12(1): 86－93.
［19］Zhang Q, Fan M X, Han X G, et al. Risk factors of unsatisfactory robot-assisted pedicle screw placement: a Case-Control study［J］. Neurospine, 2021, 18(4): 839－844.
［20］D'Souza M, Gendreau J, Feng A, et al. Robotic-assisted spine surgery: history, efficacy, cost, and future trends［J］. Robot Surg, 2019, 6: 9－23.
［21］郑山, 张琦, 何达. 机器人辅助微创腰椎手术的感染率及相关因素分析［J］. 骨科临床与研究杂志, 2021, 6(5): 280－284.
［22］Torii Y, Ueno J, Umehara T, et al. Screw insertion time, fluoroscopy time, and operation time for Robotic-Assisted lumbar pedicle screw placement compared with freehand technique［J］. Cureus, 2022, 14(5): e25039.

新型可视化骨科机器人辅助与徒手开放腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定术的回顾性队列研究

A retrospective cohort study on comparison between a novel visualized orthopedic robot-assisted technique versus a free-hand technique of pedicle screw placement in the lumbar spine

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价