Evidence Hub

Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement and Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Technique Versus Conventional Freehand Technique in Spine Surgery from Nine Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Analysis

Hui-Min Li, Ren-Jie Zhang, Cai-Liang Shen

Spine, 2020

696 participants · 172 citations

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

A meta-analysis OBJECTIVE.: To investigate whether robot-assisted techniques are superior to conventional techniques in terms of the accuracy of pedicle screw placement and clinical indexes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Robot-assisted techniques are increasingly applied to spine surgery to reduce the rate of screw misplacement. However, controversy about the superiority of robot-assisted techniques over conventional freehand techniques remains.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for potentially eligible articles. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software and subgroup analyses were performed based on the robot type for the accuracy of pedicle screw placement.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with 696 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the robot-assisted technique was more accurate in pedicle screw placement than the freehand technique. Subgroup analyses showed that the TINAVI robot-assisted technique was more accurate in screw positions Grade A (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14), Grade B (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.75), and Grades C + D + E (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.45) than the freehand technique, whereas the Renaissance robot-assisted technique showed the same accuracy as the freehand technique in screw positions…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 696 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free