Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This meta-analysis compares prominent robotic platforms for spinal surgery, using conventional (freehand or fluoroscopy) and non-robotic navigation as common controls.</p> Methods <p>Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Studies comparing screw placement of robot-assisted surgery with freehand/fluoroscopic or non-robotic navigation were included. Standard pairwise and network meta-analysis techniques with a random effects model (REM) were used with significance set at P &lt; 0.05. Primary objective was to compare screw placement accuracy and breach incidence across robot platforms. Secondary objective was to compare neurologic complication (NC) rate and blood loss (BL) among platforms.</p> Results <p>A total of 27 studies totaling 3404 patients were included. The robotic group demonstrated significantly fewer breaches compared to the conventional group (OR 0.54, P = 0.0004). The TiRobot (TINAVI) and Renaissance (Mazor) demonstrated the best overall accuracy. The robotic group demonstrated significantly lower NC (OR 0.3, P = 0.02) and lower BL (MD: −&#xa0;112.74 mL, P = 0.002) compared to the conventional approach (freehand or fluoroscopy). Potential conflicts of interest and source bias were found in 60% of TiRobot and 30% of SpineAssist studies. Robotic surgery had significantly lower major breach rates compared to non-robotic navigation (OR 0.39, P = 0.04). The Mazor X model was superior between all robotic platforms, with an OR of 0.15 (95% CrI 0.01 to 0.69, P &lt; 0.00001, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) for major breaches compared to non-robotic navigation.</p> Conclusion <p>Robot-assisted navigation platforms show significant reduction in breach rates compared to conventional and non-robotic navigation approaches in adult spinal instrumentation surgery. MazorX (Mazor), TiRobot (TINAVI) and Renaissance (Mazor) emerge as leaders in robotic spine surgery, each contributing to the increase efficacy. To obtain a more reliable evidence base guiding clinical practice and decision-making on the safety, efficacy, and superiority of specific robot-assisted navigation platforms in spinal surgery, further unbiased RCTs with international collaborations are needed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A comparison of key performance metrics of major robotic platforms in spine surgery: a network meta-analysis of 14,462 screws

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月25日

查看全文
  • Robert Koucheki,
  • John-Peter Bonello,
  • Aazad Abbas,
  • Johnathan Lex,
  • Anne L. Versteeg,
  • Mohammad Zarrabian,
  • Perry Dhaliwal,
  • Joel Finkelstein,
  • Stephen Lewis,
  • Jay Toor

摘要

Purpose

This meta-analysis compares prominent robotic platforms for spinal surgery, using conventional (freehand or fluoroscopy) and non-robotic navigation as common controls.

Methods

Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Studies comparing screw placement of robot-assisted surgery with freehand/fluoroscopic or non-robotic navigation were included. Standard pairwise and network meta-analysis techniques with a random effects model (REM) were used with significance set at P < 0.05. Primary objective was to compare screw placement accuracy and breach incidence across robot platforms. Secondary objective was to compare neurologic complication (NC) rate and blood loss (BL) among platforms.

Results

A total of 27 studies totaling 3404 patients were included. The robotic group demonstrated significantly fewer breaches compared to the conventional group (OR 0.54, P = 0.0004). The TiRobot (TINAVI) and Renaissance (Mazor) demonstrated the best overall accuracy. The robotic group demonstrated significantly lower NC (OR 0.3, P = 0.02) and lower BL (MD: − 112.74 mL, P = 0.002) compared to the conventional approach (freehand or fluoroscopy). Potential conflicts of interest and source bias were found in 60% of TiRobot and 30% of SpineAssist studies. Robotic surgery had significantly lower major breach rates compared to non-robotic navigation (OR 0.39, P = 0.04). The Mazor X model was superior between all robotic platforms, with an OR of 0.15 (95% CrI 0.01 to 0.69, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) for major breaches compared to non-robotic navigation.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted navigation platforms show significant reduction in breach rates compared to conventional and non-robotic navigation approaches in adult spinal instrumentation surgery. MazorX (Mazor), TiRobot (TINAVI) and Renaissance (Mazor) emerge as leaders in robotic spine surgery, each contributing to the increase efficacy. To obtain a more reliable evidence base guiding clinical practice and decision-making on the safety, efficacy, and superiority of specific robot-assisted navigation platforms in spinal surgery, further unbiased RCTs with international collaborations are needed.