High-grade dysplastic spondylolisthesis is a disabling disorder for which many different operative techniques have been described. The aim of this study is to evaluate Scoliosis Research Society 22-item (SRS-22r) scores, global balance, and regional spino-pelvic alignment from two to 25 years after surgery for high-grade dysplastic spondylolisthesis using an all-posterior partial reduction, transfixation technique. SRS-22r and full-spine lateral radiographs were collected for the 28 young patients (age 13.4 years (SD 2.6) who underwent surgery for high-grade dysplastic spondylolisthesis in our centre (Scottish National Spinal Deformity Service) between 1995 and 2018. The mean follow-up was nine years (2 to 25), and one patient was lost to follow-up. The standard surgical technique was an all-posterior, partial reduction, and S1 to L5 transfixation screw technique without direct decompression. Parameters for segmental (slip percentage, Dubousset’s lumbosacral angle) and regional alignment (pelvic tilt, sacral slope, L5 incidence, lumbar lordosis, and thoracic kyphosis) and global balance (T1 spino-pelvic inclination) were measured. SRS-22r scores were compared between patients with a balanced and unbalanced pelvis at final follow-up.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to systematically compare the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted (RA) technique with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted (CT) pedicle screw insertion for spine disease. A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WANFANG for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the safety and accuracy of RA compared with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion for spine disease from 2012 to 2019. This meta-analysis used Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance method with mixed-effects model for heterogeneity, calculating the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, and risk of bias were analyzed.Aims
Methods
