Robotic assisted surgeries for the treatment of spine tumors

被引:21
作者
Hu, Xiaobang [1 ]
Scharschmidt, Thomas J. [2 ]
Ohnmeiss, Donna D. [3 ]
Lieberman, Isador H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Texas Hlth Presbyterian Hosp Plano, Texas Back Inst, Scoliosis & Spine Tumor Ctr, 6020 W Parker Rd,Ste 200a, Plano, TX 75093 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, James Canc Hosp, Wexner Med Ctr, Dept Orthpaed Surg, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[3] Texas Back Inst, Res Fdn, Plano, TX USA
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY | 2015年 / 9卷
关键词
Spine tumor; instrumentation; augmentation; robotic-assisted;
D O I
10.14444/2001
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Surgery plays an important role in the treatment of patients with metastatic or primary spine tumors. In recent years, various new techniques, such as robotic assisted spine surgery have been developed which has shown some promising results by improving the accuracy of spinal instrumentation and reducing potential complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our early experience using robotic guidance in the treatment of spinal tumors. Methods Data were collected from medical records for each surgery in which the robotic system was used to assist with biopsy, pedicle screw placement and/or vertebral augmentation in the treatment of spinal tumors. Patient's age, gender, diagnosis and surgical procedure were documented. The surgical time, estimated blood loss, peri-operative and postoperative complications were obtained. The visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain were also recorded. Results A total of 9 consecutive patients (7 female, 2 male) were included in this study, beginning with the first case experience. The mean age of the patients was 60 years (range 47-69). All patients presented with thoracic or lumbar vertebral collapse and/or myelopathy. Robotic assisted posterior instrumentation was successfully performed in all patients. Robotic assisted vertebral augmentation was performed in 4 patients. The average number of levels instrumented was 5. The average surgery time (skin to skin) was 4 hours and 24 minutes and the mean blood loss was 319 ml. There were no complications peri-operatively or through the latest follow-up. Seven of the 9 patients reported improved back pain and/or leg pain at the latest follow-up and the data were not available in two patients. Conclusions The published complication rates of spinal tumor surgeries range between 5.3% and 19%. With robotic assistance, the surgical complication rate appears improved over the historical figures. Our study shows that the robotic system was safe and performed as desired in the treatment of metastatic and primary spine tumors. These results support that further evaluation in a larger series of patients.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] Shifting Paradigms in the Treatment of Metastatic Spine Disease
    Bilsky, Mark H.
    Laufer, Ilya
    Burch, Shane
    [J]. SPINE, 2009, 34 : S101 - S107
  • [2] Clinical Acceptance and Accuracy Assessment of Spinal Implants Guided With SpineAssist Surgical Robot Retrospective Study
    Devito, Dennis P.
    Kaplan, Leon
    Dietl, Rupert
    Pfeiffer, Michael
    Horne, Dale
    Silberstein, Boris
    Hardenbrook, Mitchell
    Kiriyanthan, George
    Barzilay, Yair
    Bruskin, Alexander
    Sackerer, Dieter
    Alexandrovsky, Vitali
    Stueer, Carsten
    Burger, Ralf
    Maeurer, Johannes
    Gordon, Donald G.
    Schoenmayr, Robert
    Friedlander, Alon
    Knoller, Nachshon
    Schmieder, Kirsten
    Pechlivanis, Ioannis
    Kim, In-Se
    Meyer, Bernhard
    Shoham, Moshe
    [J]. SPINE, 2010, 35 (24) : 2109 - 2115
  • [3] The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders
    Gaines, RW
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2000, 82A (10) : 1458 - 1476
  • [4] Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement: lessons learned from the first 102 patients
    Hu, Xiaobang
    Ohnmeiss, Donna D.
    Lieberman, Isador H.
    [J]. EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2013, 22 (03) : 661 - 666
  • [5] Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement
    Kantelhardt, Sven Rainer
    Martinez, Ramon
    Baerwinkel, Stefan
    Burger, Ralf
    Giese, Alf
    Rohde, Veit
    [J]. EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2011, 20 (06) : 860 - 868
  • [6] Bone-mounted miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw placement: Part I - Technical development and a test case result
    Lieberman, Isador H.
    Togawa, Daisuke
    Kayanja, Mark M.
    Reinhardt, Mary K.
    Friedlander, Alon
    Knoller, Nachshon
    Benzel, Edward C.
    [J]. NEUROSURGERY, 2006, 59 (03) : 641 - 650
  • [7] Assessment of Pedicle Screw Placement Accuracy, Procedure Time, and Radiation Exposure Using a Miniature Robotic Guidance System
    Lieberman, Isador H.
    Hardenbrook, Mitchell A.
    Wang, Jeffrey C.
    Guyer, Richard D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2012, 25 (05): : 241 - 248
  • [8] Fluoroscopy-based navigation system in spine surgery
    Merloz, P.
    Troccaz, J.
    Vottaillat, H.
    Vasile, C.
    Tonetti, I.
    Eid, A.
    Plaweski, S.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS PART H-JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE, 2007, 221 (H7) : 813 - 820
  • [9] Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial
    Patchell, RA
    Tibbs, PA
    Regine, WF
    Payne, R
    Saris, S
    Kryscio, RJ
    Mohiuddin, M
    Young, B
    [J]. LANCET, 2005, 366 (9486) : 643 - 648
  • [10] Percutaneous Placement of Pedicle Screws in the Lumbar Spine Using a Bone Mounted Miniature Robotic System First Experiences and Accuracy of Screw Placement
    Pechlivanis, Ioannis
    Kiriyanthan, George
    Engelhardt, Martin
    Scholz, Martin
    Luecke, Sebastian
    Harders, Albrecht
    Schmieder, Kirsten
    [J]. SPINE, 2009, 34 (04) : 392 - 398