Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. Ten RCTs with 713 patients and 3,331 pedicle screws were included. Compared with CT, the accuracy rate of RA was superior in Grade A with statistical significance and Grade A + B without statistical significance. Compared with CT, the operating time of RA was longer. The difference between RA and CT was statistically significant in radiation dose. Proximal facet joint violation occurred less in RA than in CT. The postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of RA was smaller than that of CT, and there were some interesting outcomes in our subgroup analysis. Conclusion. RA technique could be viewed as an accurate and safe pedicle screw implantation method compared to CT. A robotic system equipped with optical intraoperative navigation is superior to CT in accuracy. RA pedicle screw insertion can improve accuracy and maintain stability for some challenging areas. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(10):653–666

Aims

Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted.

Aims

We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences.

This review provides a concise outline of the advances made in the care of patients and to the quality of life after a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) over the last century. Despite these improvements reversal of the neurological injury is not yet possible. Instead, current treatment is limited to providing symptomatic relief, avoiding secondary insults and preventing additional sequelae. However, with an ever-advancing technology and deeper understanding of the damaged spinal cord, this appears increasingly conceivable. A brief synopsis of the most prominent challenges facing both clinicians and research scientists in developing functional treatments for a progressively complex injury are presented. Moreover, the multiple mechanisms by which damage propagates many months after the original injury requires a multifaceted approach to ameliorate the human spinal cord. We discuss potential methods to protect the spinal cord from damage, and to manipulate the inherent inhibition of the spinal cord to regeneration and repair. Although acute and chronic SCI share common final pathways resulting in cell death and neurological deficits, the underlying putative mechanisms of chronic SCI and the treatments are not covered in this review.

Aims

People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial).