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
To employ a simple and fast method to evaluate those patients with neurological deficits and misplaced screws in relatively safe lumbosacral spine, and to determine if it is necessary to undertake revision surgery. A total of 316 patients were treated by fixation of lumbar and lumbosacral transpedicle screws at our institution from January 2011 to December 2012. We designed the criteria for post-operative revision scores of pedicle screw malpositioning (PRSPSM) in the lumbosacral canal. We recommend the revision of the misplaced pedicle screw in patients with PRSPSM = 5′ as early as possible. However, patients with PRSPSM < 5′ need to follow the next consecutive assessment procedures. A total of 15 patients were included according to at least three-stage follow-up.Objectives
Methods
