Comparison of the Accuracy and Safety of TiRobot-Assisted and Fluoroscopy-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement for the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures.

objectiveStudies have compared the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted techniques for inserting conventional open pedicle screws for spinal surgery. However, no relevant studies have confirmed that robot-assisted percutaneous screw placement is better than fluoroscopic percutaneous screw placement for the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. This study compared the accuracy and safety of TiRobot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement with those of the fluoroscopy-assisted percutaneous technique for the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures.

methodsThis retrospective study included 126 patients with thoracolumbar fractures who underwent percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Sixty-five patients were treated with the TiRobot-assisted technique and 61 patients were treated with the fluoroscopy-assisted technique. Patient demographics, accuracy of screw placement (according to the Gertzbein and Robbins scale of grades A to E), screw insertion angle, radiation exposure, surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, incision length, hospital expenses, surgical site infection, and neurological injury of the TiRobot-assisted and fluoroscopy-assisted groups were compared using Student's t-test, Pearson χ

resultsA total of 729 screws were placed (TiRobot-assisted group: 374 screws; fluoroscopy-assisted group: 355 screws). In the TiRobot-assisted group, 82.8% of screws were optimally positioned (grade A); however, the placement grades of the remaining screws were categorized as grade B (13.3%), grade C (3.2%), and grade D (0.5%). In the fluoroscopy-assisted group, 66.7% of the screws were optimally positioned (grade A); however, the placement grades of the remaining screws were categorized as grade B (21.4%), grade C (7.6%), grade D (3.6%), and grade E (0.5%). The proportion of clinically acceptable screws (grade A or B) was greater in the TiRobot-assisted group than in the fluoroscopy-assisted group. Additionally, the TiRobot-assisted group had a significantly larger mean screw insertion angle (22.27° ± 5.48° vs 20.55° ± 5.15°), larger incision length (13.86 ± 1.24 cm vs 12.77 ± 1.43 cm), and higher hospital expenses (69061.55 ± 7166.60 yuan vs 59383.85 ± 5019.64 yuan) than the fluoroscopy-assisted group. There were no significant differences in the intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and rates of surgical site infection and neurological injury in both groups (p > 0.05). However, the TiRobot-assisted group had significantly better surgical times, radiation times, and radiation exposure than the fluoroscopy-assisted group (p < 0.05).

conclusionsPercutaneous TiRobot-assisted pedicle screw placement is a safe, useful, and potentially more accurate alternative to the percutaneous fluoroscopy-assisted technique for treating thoracolumbar fractures.