Comparison of No Tap (two-step) and Tapping Robotic Assisted Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Insertion

Overview

Journal J Robot Surg

Publisher Springer

Specialties Biotechnology
General Surgery

Date 2024 May 7

PMID 38714574

Authors

Neil J Werthmann 3rd

Jeffrey L Gum

Kosei Nagata

Mladen Djurasovic

Steven D Glassman

R Kirk Owens 2nd

Charles H Crawford 3rd

Leah Y Carreon

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Workflow for cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws includes tapping line-to-line or under tapping by 1 mm. We describe a non-tapping, two-step workflow for CBT screw placement, and compare the safety profile and time savings to the Tap (three-step) workflow. Patients undergoing robotic assisted 1-3 level posterior fusion with CBT screws for degenerative conditions were identified and separated into either a No-Tap or Tap workflow. Number of total screws, screw-related complications, estimated blood loss, operative time, robotic time, and return to the operating room were collected and analyzed. There were 91 cases (458 screws) in the No-Tap and 88 cases (466 screws) in the Tap groups, with no difference in demographics, revision status, ASA grade, approach, number of levels fused or diagnosis between cohorts. Total robotic time was lower in the No-Tap (26.7 min) versus the Tap group (30.3 min, p = 0.053). There was no difference in the number of malpositioned screws identified intraoperatively (10 vs 6, p = 0.427), screws converted to freehand (3 vs 3, p = 0.699), or screws abandoned (3 vs 2, p = 1.000). No pedicle/pars fracture or fixation failure was seen in the No-Tap cohort and one in the Tap cohort (p = 1.00). No patients in either cohort were returned to OR for malpositioned screws. This study showed that the No-Tap screw insertion workflow for robot-assisted CBT reduces robotic time without increasing complications.

References

Lieberman I, Kisinde S, Hesselbacher S . Robotic-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement During Spine Surgery. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2020; 10(2):e0020. PMC: 7478327. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.19.00020. View

Buza 3rd J, Good C, Lehman Jr R, Pollina J, Chua R, Buchholz A . Robotic-assisted cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws using the Mazor X Stealth Edition (MXSE) system: workflow and technical tips for safe and efficient use. J Robot Surg. 2020; 15(1):13-23. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01147-7. View

Mao J, Khan A, Soliman M, Levy B, McGuire M, Starling R . Use of the Scan-and-Plan Workflow in Next-Generation Robot-Assisted Pedicle Screw Insertion: Retrospective Cohort Study and Literature Review. World Neurosurg. 2021; 151:e10-e18. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.02.119. View

Matsukawa K, Kaito T, Abe Y . Accuracy of cortical bone trajectory screw placement using patient-specific template guide system. Neurosurg Rev. 2019; 43(4):1135-1142. DOI: 10.1007/s10143-019-01140-1. View

Hu X, Ohnmeiss D, Lieberman I . Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement: lessons learned from the first 102 patients. Eur Spine J. 2012; 22(3):661-6. PMC: 3585630. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2499-1. View

Fiani B, Quadri S, Farooqui M, Cathel A, Berman B, Noel J . Impact of robot-assisted spine surgery on health care quality and neurosurgical economics: A systemic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2018; 43(1):17-25. DOI: 10.1007/s10143-018-0971-z. View

Kantelhardt S, Martinez R, Baerwinkel S, Burger R, Giese A, Rohde V . Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20(6):860-8. PMC: 3099153. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1729-2. View

Santoni B, Hynes R, McGilvray K, Rodriguez-Canessa G, LYONS A, Henson M . Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J. 2008; 9(5):366-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.008. View

Hoffman H, Verhave B, Jalal M, Beutler T, Galgano M, Chin L . Comparison of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Placement Using the Midline Lumbar Fusion Technique to Traditional Pedicle Screws: A Case-Control Study. Int J Spine Surg. 2019; 13(1):33-38. PMC: 6383460. DOI: 10.14444/6005. View

10.

Hung C, Wu M, Hong R, Weng M, Yu G, Kao C . Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with conventional and cortical bone trajectory. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016; 145:41-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.03.005. View

11.

Matsukawa K, Yato Y . Lumbar pedicle screw fixation with cortical bone trajectory: A review from anatomical and biomechanical standpoints. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2019; 1(4):164-173. PMC: 6698564. DOI: 10.22603/ssrr.1.2017-0006. View

12.

Baluch D, Patel A, Lullo B, Havey R, Voronov L, Nguyen N . Effect of physiological loads on cortical and traditional pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39(22):E1297-302. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000553. View

13.

Phan K, Hogan J, Maharaj M, Mobbs R . Cortical Bone Trajectory for Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement: A Review of Published Reports. Orthop Surg. 2015; 7(3):213-21. PMC: 6583742. DOI: 10.1111/os.12185. View

14.

Keorochana G, Pairuchvej S, Trathitephun W, Arirachakaran A, Predeeprompan P, Kongtharvonskul J . Comparative Outcomes of Cortical Screw Trajectory Fixation and Pedicle Screw Fixation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2017; 102:340-349. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.010. View

15.

Pfeiffer F, Abernathie D, Smith D . A comparison of pullout strength for pedicle screws of different designs: a study using tapped and untapped pilot holes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(23):E867-70. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000244658.35865.59. View

16.

Mizuno M, Kuraishi K, Umeda Y, Sano T, Tsuji M, Suzuki H . Midline lumbar fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2014; 54(9):716-21. PMC: 4533370. DOI: 10.2176/nmc.st.2013-0395. View

17.

Kaye I, Prasad S, Vaccaro A, Hilibrand A . The Cortical Bone Trajectory for Pedicle Screw Insertion. JBJS Rev. 2017; 5(8):e13. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.16.00120. View

18.

Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, Nemoto K . Biomechanical evaluation of the fixation strength of lumbar pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory: a finite element study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015; 23(4):471-8. DOI: 10.3171/2015.1.SPINE141103. View

19.

Ahern D, Gibbons D, Schroeder G, Vaccaro A, Butler J . Image-guidance, Robotics, and the Future of Spine Surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2019; 33(5):179-184. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000809. View

20.

Zhang L, Tian N, Yang J, Ni W, Jin L . Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020; 21(1):536. PMC: 7422524. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03535-4. View