Effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:4
|
作者
Wang, Xu [1 ]
Liu, Hao-chuan [1 ]
Ma, Yi-hang [1 ]
Zhu, Qing-san [1 ]
Zhu, Yu-hang [1 ]
机构
[1] Jilin Univ, China Japan Union Hosp, Dept Spine Surg, 126 Xiantai St, Changchun, Jilin, Peoples R China
关键词
Robot-assisted; Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; Degenerative lumbar spinal diseases; Meta-analysis; PEDICLE SCREW PLACEMENT; LEARNING-CURVE; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1007/s11701-023-01768-8
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Robot-assisted (RA) technology has been widely used in spine surgery. This analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of RA minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and fluoroscopy-assisted (FA) MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases (DLSD). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched, and the outcomes included surgical parameters [operation time, blood loss, number of fluoroscopic, accuracy of pedicle screw position, superior facet joint violation (FJV)], and clinical indexes (Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, complications). Eleven articles involving 1066 patients were included. RA group produced better results than the FA group in operation time (WMD = - 6.59; 95% CI - 12.79 to - 0.40; P = 0.04), blood loss (WMD = - 34.81; 95% CI - 50.55 to - 19.08; P < 0.0001), number of fluoroscopic (WMD = - 18.24; 95% CI - 30.63 to - 5.85; P = 0.004), accuracy of pedicle screw position: Grade A (OR = 3.16; 95% CI 2.36-4.23; P < 0.00001), Grade B (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28-0.54; P < 0.00001), Grade C (OR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.54; P = 0.0002), and Grade D (OR = 0.17; 95% CI 0.03-0.98; P = 0.05), FJV: Grade 0 (OR = 3.27; 95% CI 1.34-8.02; P = 0.010), Grade 1 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.38; P < 0.00001), Grade 2 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.51; P = 0.0002), and Grade 3 (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.07-0.93; P = 0.04). But no significant differences in VAS score, ODI, JOA score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, and complications. These results demonstrate a significant improvement in the intraoperative course of the RA technique. However, RA-MIS-TLIF has not yet demonstrated significant advantages in terms of postoperative symptom relief and functional improvement. Future research and clinical practice should further explore the efficacy of this technique to optimize outcomes and quality of life for patients with DLSD. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023454405).
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of efficacy and safety between unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus uniportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ding, Yi
    Chen, Hao
    Wu, Gang
    Xie, Tao
    Zhu, Liulong
    Wang, Xuepeng
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2024, 25 (01)
  • [22] Comparison of endoscopic spine surgery and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: A meta-analysis
    Goh, Tae Sik
    Park, Shi Hwan
    Kim, Dong Suk
    Ryu, Seungyoon
    Son, Seung Min
    Lee, Jung Sub
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2021, 88 : 5 - 9
  • [23] Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis
    Xie Lei
    Wu WenJian
    Liang Yu
    中华医学杂志英文版, 2016, 129 (16) : 1969 - 1986
  • [24] Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis
    Xie, Lei
    Wu, Wen-Jian
    Liang, Yu
    CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 129 (16) : 1969 - +
  • [25] Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis
    He, Yanxing
    Cheng, Qianyue
    She, Jiang
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2024, 25 (01)
  • [26] Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion rates performed without posterolateral fusion
    Bevevino, Adam J.
    Kang, Daniel G.
    Lehman, Ronald A., Jr.
    Van Blarcum, Gregory S.
    Wagner, Scott C.
    Gwinn, David E.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2014, 21 (10) : 1686 - 1690
  • [27] Impact of Obesity on Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Tang, Tao
    Wan, Bingwen
    Zhang, Xu
    Zhang, Alei
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 185 : E635 - E649
  • [28] Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Li, Yang
    Gao, Shang Jun
    Hu, Xu
    Lin, Shi Shui
    MEDICINE, 2023, 102 (34) : E34705
  • [29] Feasibility of outpatient robot assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Guillotte, Andrew
    LeBeau, Gabriel
    Alvarado, Anthony
    Davis, Justin
    NORTH AMERICAN SPINE SOCIETY JOURNAL, 2023, 13
  • [30] Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Percutaneous Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Zhu, Lei
    Cai, Tongchuan
    Shan, Yuzhou
    Zhang, Wenjie
    Zhang, Liang
    Feng, Xinmin
    PAIN PHYSICIAN, 2021, 24 (06) : 441 - 452