Is There a Difference in Screw Accuracy, Robot Time Per Screw, Robot Abandonment, and Radiation Exposure Between the Mazor X and the Renaissance? A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 1179 Robot-Assisted Screws
Open Access
- 8 July 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Global Spine Journal
- Vol. 13 (5), 1286-1292
- https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682211029867
Abstract
Prospective single-cohort analysis. To compare the outcomes/complications of 2 robotic systems for spine surgery. Adult patients (≥18-years-old) who underwent robot-assisted spine surgery from 2016-2019 were assessed. A propensity score matching (PSM) algorithm was used to match Mazor X to Renaissance cases. Preoperative CT scan for planning and an intraoperative O-arm for screw evaluation were preformed. Outcomes included screw accuracy, robot time/screw, robot abandonment, and radiation. Screw accuracy was measured using Vitrea Core software by 2 orthopedic surgeons. Screw breach was measured according to the Gertzbein/Robbins classification. After PSA, a total of 65 patients (Renaissance: 22 vs. X: 43) were included. Patient/operative factors were similar between robot systems (P > .05). The pedicle screw accuracy was similar between robots (Renaissance: 1.1%% vs. X: 1.3%, P = .786); however, the S2AI screw breach rate was significantly lower for the X (Renaissance: 9.5% vs. X: 1.2%, P = .025). Robot time per screw was not statistically different (Renaissance: 4.6 minutes vs. X: 3.9 minutes, P = .246). The X was more reliable with an abandonment rate of 2.3% vs. Renaissance:22.7%, P = .007. Radiation exposure were not different between robot systems. Non-robot related complications including dural tear, loss of motor/sensory function, and blood transfusion were similar between robot systems. This is the first comparative analyses of screw accuracy, robot time/screw, robot abandonment, and radiation exposure between the Mazor X and Renaissance systems. There are substantial improvements in the X robot, particularly in the perioperative planning processes, which likely contribute to the X’s superiority in S2AI screw accuracy by nearly 8-fold and robot reliability by nearly 10-fold.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsEuropean Spine Journal, 2018
- Current applications of robotics in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literatureNeurosurgical Focus, 2017
- Evaluation of robot-guided minimally invasive implantation of 2067 pedicle screwsNeurosurgical Focus, 2017
- Navigation and Robotics in Spinal Surgery: Where Are We Now?Neurosurgery, 2017
- Robotic Guidance for S2-Alar-Iliac Screws in Spinal Deformity CorrectionClinical Spine Surgery: A Spine Publication, 2017
- Robotic-guided sacro-pelvic fixation using S2 alar-iliac screws: feasibility and accuracyEuropean Spine Journal, 2016
- What Is the Learning Curve for Robotic-assisted Pedicle Screw Placement in Spine Surgery?Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, 2014
- Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement: lessons learned from the first 102 patientsEuropean Spine Journal, 2012
- Clinical Acceptance and Accuracy Assessment of Spinal Implants Guided With SpineAssist Surgical RobotSpine, 2010
- Miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw placement in posterior spinal fusion: early clinical experience with the SpineAssist®International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 2006