Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease
Objective There have been no clinical studies comparing different robotic techniques. We compare minimally invasive, robot-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RG-TLIF) and mini-open robot-guided posterior lumbar interbody fusion (RG-PLIF). Methods Using data from a prospective institution...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society
2021-03-01
|
| Series: | Neurospine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.e-neurospine.org/upload/pdf/ns-2040294-147.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797329830272827392 |
|---|---|
| author | Victor E. Staartjes Bianca Battilana Marc L. Schröder |
| author_facet | Victor E. Staartjes Bianca Battilana Marc L. Schröder |
| author_sort | Victor E. Staartjes |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective There have been no clinical studies comparing different robotic techniques. We compare minimally invasive, robot-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RG-TLIF) and mini-open robot-guided posterior lumbar interbody fusion (RG-PLIF). Methods Using data from a prospective institutional registry, we identified 38 patients who underwent RG-PLIF. Propensity score matching using a nearest-neighbor algorithm was implemented to select RG-TLIF controls. Twelve-month patient-reported outcome measures are presented. A reduction of ≥ 30% from baseline was defined as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Results Among the 76 included patients, there was no difference between RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF in surgical time (132.3 ± 29.4 minutes vs. 156.5 ± 53.0 minutes, p = 0.162), length of stay (55.9 ± 20.0 hours vs. 57.2 ± 18.8 hours, p = 0.683), and radiation dose area product (310.6 ± 126.1 mGy × cm2 vs. 287.9 ± 90.3 mGy × cm2, p = 0.370). However, while there was no difference among the 2 groups in terms of raw postoperative patient-reported outcome measures scores (all p > 0.05), MCID in leg pain was greater for RG-PLIF (55.3% vs. 78.9%, p = 0.028), and MCID in Oswestry Disability Index was greater for RG-TLIF (92.1% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.009). There was no difference concerning back pain (81.6% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.185). Conclusion Our findings suggest that both RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF are viable and equally effective techniques in robotic spine surgery. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T07:11:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e9628b928d9b498d88df5813d1ecbe75 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2586-6583 2586-6591 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T07:11:08Z |
| publishDate | 2021-03-01 |
| publisher | Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Neurospine |
| spelling | doaj.art-e9628b928d9b498d88df5813d1ecbe752024-02-03T02:48:45ZengKorean Spinal Neurosurgery SocietyNeurospine2586-65832586-65912021-03-011819810510.14245/ns.2040294.1471083Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative DiseaseVictor E. Staartjes0Bianca Battilana1Marc L. Schröder2 Department of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Machine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience (MICN) Laboratory, University Hospital Zurich, Clinical Neuroscience Centre, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Department of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsObjective There have been no clinical studies comparing different robotic techniques. We compare minimally invasive, robot-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RG-TLIF) and mini-open robot-guided posterior lumbar interbody fusion (RG-PLIF). Methods Using data from a prospective institutional registry, we identified 38 patients who underwent RG-PLIF. Propensity score matching using a nearest-neighbor algorithm was implemented to select RG-TLIF controls. Twelve-month patient-reported outcome measures are presented. A reduction of ≥ 30% from baseline was defined as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Results Among the 76 included patients, there was no difference between RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF in surgical time (132.3 ± 29.4 minutes vs. 156.5 ± 53.0 minutes, p = 0.162), length of stay (55.9 ± 20.0 hours vs. 57.2 ± 18.8 hours, p = 0.683), and radiation dose area product (310.6 ± 126.1 mGy × cm2 vs. 287.9 ± 90.3 mGy × cm2, p = 0.370). However, while there was no difference among the 2 groups in terms of raw postoperative patient-reported outcome measures scores (all p > 0.05), MCID in leg pain was greater for RG-PLIF (55.3% vs. 78.9%, p = 0.028), and MCID in Oswestry Disability Index was greater for RG-TLIF (92.1% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.009). There was no difference concerning back pain (81.6% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.185). Conclusion Our findings suggest that both RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF are viable and equally effective techniques in robotic spine surgery.http://www.e-neurospine.org/upload/pdf/ns-2040294-147.pdfroboticsrobotspinal fusionspondylolisthesistransforaminal lumbar interbody fusionposterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| spellingShingle | Victor E. Staartjes Bianca Battilana Marc L. Schröder Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease Neurospine robotics robot spinal fusion spondylolisthesis transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title | Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease |
| title_full | Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease |
| title_fullStr | Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease |
| title_full_unstemmed | Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease |
| title_short | Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease |
| title_sort | robot guided transforaminal versus robot guided posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease |
| topic | robotics robot spinal fusion spondylolisthesis transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| url | http://www.e-neurospine.org/upload/pdf/ns-2040294-147.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT victorestaartjes robotguidedtransforaminalversusrobotguidedposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativedisease AT biancabattilana robotguidedtransforaminalversusrobotguidedposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativedisease AT marclschroder robotguidedtransforaminalversusrobotguidedposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativedisease |