No abstract

Background: Spinal instrumentation in children with congenital spine deformity poses challenges to the surgeon, given the small patient size and the anomalous anatomy often encountered. Purpose: We aimed to investigate the accuracy of screw placement when robotics coupled with real-time navigation was used for surgical treatment of pediatric congenital spine deformity at 1 institution. Methods: We conducted a retrospective search of our institution’s database for all patients younger than 18 years of age with congenital spine deformity who were treated with the robotics surgical platform coupled with navigation between June 2019 and December 2020. We recorded data on demographics, location and type of anomaly, procedure performed, and intraoperative variables related to robotics and navigation. We reviewed the images of patients who had intraoperative 3-dimensional imaging or postoperative computed tomographic scans to determine the accuracy of screw placement using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale. Results: In 14 patients identified, a total of 95 screws were attempted, with 94 successfully placed using robotics coupled with navigation. There were no noted screw-related complications (neurologic or visceral) and no return to the operating room for screw malposition. Conclusion: Patients with congenital spine deformity present potentially unique challenges due to variant anatomy. This retrospective series suggests that robotics coupled with navigation for congenital spine deformity correction in the pediatric population may aid in accurate screw placement and reduce complication rates. More rigorous study is warranted.

Study Design Retrospective cohort study Objectives The purpose of this study is to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing one-to three-level lumbar fusion using robotically assisted vs freehand pedicle screw placement. Methods Patients who underwent either robotically assisted or freehand pedicle screw placement for one-to three-level lumbar fusion surgery from January 1, 2014 to August 31, 2020 at a single academic institution were identified. Propensity score matching was performed based on demographic variables. Clinical and surgical outcomes were compared between groups. Recovery Ratios (RR) and the proportion of patients achieving the minimally clinically important difference (%MCID) were calculated for Oswestry Disability Index, PCS-12, MCS-12, VAS Back, and VAS Leg at 1 year. Surgical outcomes included complication and revision rates. Results A total of 262 patients were included in the study (85 robotic and 177 freehand). No significant differences were found in ΔPROM scores, RR, or MCID between patients who underwent robotically assisted vs freehand screw placement. The rates of revision (1.70% freehand vs 1.18% robotic, P = 1.000) and complications (.57% freehand vs 1.18% robotic, P = .546) were not found to be statically different between the 2 groups. Controlling for demographic factors, procedure type (robotic vs freehand) did not emerge as a significant predictor of ΔPROM scores on multivariate linear regression analysis. Conclusions Robotically assisted pedicle screw placement did not result in significantly improved clinical or surgical outcomes compared to conventional freehand screw placement for patients undergoing one-to three-level lumbar fusion.

Haptic robotic-arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) seeks to leverage three-dimensional planning, intraoperative assessment of ligament laxity, and guided bone preparation to establish and achieve patient-specific targets for implant position. We sought to compare (1) operative details, (2) knee alignment, (3) recovery of knee function, and (4) complications during adoption of this technique to our experience with manual TKA. We compared 120 RATKAs performed between December 2016 and July 2018 to 120 consecutive manual TKAs performed between May 2015 and January 2017. Operative details, lengths of stay (LOS), and discharge dispositions were collected. Tibiofemoral angles, Knee Society Scores (KSS), and ranges of motion were assessed until 3 months postoperatively. Manipulations under anesthesia, complications, and reoperations were tabulated. Mean operative times were 22 minutes longer in RATKA (p < 0.001) for this early cohort, but decreased by 27 minutes (p < 0.001) from the first 25 RATKA cases to the last 25 RATKA cases. Less articular constraint was used to achieve stability in RATKA (93 vs. 55% cruciate-retaining, p < 0.001; 3 vs. 35% posterior stabilized (PS), p < 0.001; and 4 vs. 10% varus-valgus constrained, p_ = _0.127). RATKA had lower LOS (2.7 vs. 3.4 days, p < 0.001). Discharge dispositions, tibiofemoral angles, KSS, and knee flexion angles did not differ, but manipulations were less common in RATKAs (4 vs. 17%, p = 0.013). We observed less use of constraint, shorter LOS, and fewer manipulations under anesthesia in RATKA, with no increase in complications. Operative times were longer, particularly early in the learning curve, but improved with experience. All measured patient-centered outcomes were equivalent or favored the newer technique, suggesting that RATKA with patient-specific alignment targets does not compromise initial quality. Observed differences may relate to improved ligament balance or diminished need for ligament release.