Whenever any new technology is introduced into the healthcare system, it should satisfy all three pillars of the iron triangle of health care, which are quality, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility. There has been quite advancement in the field of spine surgery in the last two decades with introduction of new technological modalities such as CAN and surgical robotic devices. MAZOR SpineAssist/Renaissance was the first robotic system to be approved for the use in spine surgeries in the USA in 2004. In this review, the authors sought to determine if the current literature supports this technology to be cost-effective, accessible, and improve the quality of care for individuals and populations by increasing the likelihood of desired health outcomes. Robotic-assisted surgery seems to provide perfection in surgical ergonomics and surgical dexterity, consequently improving patient outcomes. A lot of data is present on the accuracy, effectiveness, and safety of the robotic-guided technology which reflects remarkable improvements in quality of care, making its utility convincingly undisputable. The technology has been claimed to be cost-effective but there seems to be lack of data in the literature on this topic to validate this claim. Apart from just the outcome parameters, there is an immense need of studies on real-time cost-efficacy, patient perspective, surgeon and resident learning curve, and their experience with this new technology. Furthermore, new studies looking into increased utilities of this technology, such as brain and spine tumor resection, deep brain stimulation procedures, and osteotomies in deformity surgery, might authenticate the cost of the equipment.

No abstract

These data confirm the efficacy of isosulfan blue and TSC for SLN mapping in colorectal tumors. No significant difference with respect to feasibility or accuracy exists between isosulfan blue and TSC. The metastatic yield is significantly higher in SLNs identified by both modalities compared with isosulfan blue only.

IntroductionPedicle 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 methodsA 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionThe 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.