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
We aimed to retrospectively assess the accuracy and safety of
CT navigated pedicle screws and to compare accuracy in the cervical
and thoracic spine (C2-T8) with (COMB) and without (POST) prior
anterior surgery (anterior cervical discectomy or corpectomy and
fusion with ventral plating: ACDF/ACCF). A total of 592 pedicle screws, which were used in 107 consecutively
operated patients (210 COMB, 382 POST), were analysed. The accuracy
of positioning was determined according to the classification of
Gertzbein and Robbins on post-operative CT scans.Aims
Patients and Methods
