Association of robot-assisted techniques with the accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement: A network pooling analysis

Background Traditional paired meta-analyses have yielded inconsistent results for the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement due to the high heterogeneity within studies. This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement. Methods The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with no language limitations from inception to Jan 4, 2022. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results. The main outcomes were accuracy of pedicle screw placement, proximal facet joint violation, and complications. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022301417). Findings 26 trials including 2046 participants evaluating robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement were included in this study. Our pooled results showed that Renaissance (OR 2.86; [95% CI 1.79 to 4.57]) and TiRobot (OR 3.10; [95% CI 2.19 to 4.40]) yielded higher rates of perfect pedicle screw insertion (Grades A) than the conventional freehand technique. Renaissance (OR 2.82; [95% CI 1.51 to 5.25]) and TiRobot (OR 4.58; [95% CI 2.65 to 7.89]) yielded higher rates of clinically acceptable pedicle screw insertion (Grades A+B). However, ROSA, SpineAssist, and Orthobot were not associated with higher perfect pedicle screw insertion and clinically acceptable pedicle screw insertion rates. Robot-assisted techniques were associated with low rates of proximal facet joint violation (OR 0.18; [95% CI 0.10 to 0.32]; I2:9.55%) and overall complications (OR 0.38; [95% CI 0.23 to 0.63]; I2:27.05%). Moreover, robot-assisted techniques were associated with lower radiation doses (MD -14.38; [95% CI -25.62 to -3.13]; I2:100.00%). Interpretation Our findings suggest that only Renaissance and TiRobot systems are associated with high accuracy rates of pedicle screw placement. Robotic-assisted techniques hold great promise in spinal surgery due to their safety and effectiveness. Copyright (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.