Search

Background: There is scant data on the role that robotics and navigation play in spine surgery training and practice of early attendings. This study aimed to assess the impact of navigation and robotics on spine surgery training and practice., Methods: A survey gathering information on utilization of navigation and robotics in training and practice was administered to trainees and early attendings., Results: A total of 51 surveys were returned completed: 71% were attendings (average practice years: 2), 29% were trainees. During training, 22% were exposed to only fluoroscopy, 75% were exposed to navigation, 51% were exposed to robotics, and 40% were exposed to both navigation and robotics. In our sample, 87% and 61% of respondents who had exposure to navigation and robotics, respectively, felt that it had a positive impact on their training. In practice, 28% utilized only fluoroscopy, 69% utilized navigation, 30% utilized robotics, and 28% utilized both navigation and robotics. The top 3 reasons behind positive impact on training and practice were: 1) increased screw accuracy, 2) exposure to upcoming technology, and 3) less radiation exposure. The top 3 reasons behind negative impact were: 1) compromises training to independently place screws, 2) time and personnel requirements, and 3) concerns about availing it in practice. In sum, 76% of attendings felt that they will be utilizing more navigation and robotics in 5 years' time., Conclusions: Navigation and robotics have a perceivably positive impact on training and are increasingly being incorporated into practice. However, associated concerns demand spine surgeons to be thoughtful about how they integrate these technologies moving forward., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Objective: To analyze the learning curves of three spine surgeons for robotic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF)., Summary of Background Data: Although the learning curve for robotic MI-TLIF has been described, the current evidence is of low quality with most studies being single-surgeon series., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent single-level MI-TLIF with three spine surgeons (years in practice: surgeon 1: 4, surgeon 2: 16, and surgeon 3: two) using a floor-mounted robot were included. Outcome measures were operative time, fluoroscopy time, intraoperative complications, screw revision, and patient-reported outcome measures. Each surgeon's cases were divided into successive groups of 10 patients and compared for differences. Linear regression and cumulative sum (CuSum) analyses were performed to analyze the trend and learning curve, respectively., Results: A total of 187 patients were included (surgeon 1: 45, surgeon 2: 122, and surgeon 3: 20). For surgeon 1, CuSum analysis showed a learning curve of 21 cases with the attainment of mastery at case 31. Linear regression plots showed negative slopes for operative and fluoroscopy time. Both learning phase and postlearning phase groups showed significant improvement in patient-reported outcome measures. For surgeon 2, CuSum analysis demonstrated no discernible learning curve. There was no significant difference between successive patient groups in either operative time or fluoroscopy time. For surgeon 3, CuSum analysis demonstrated no discernible learning curve. Even though the difference between successive patient groups was not significant, cases 11 to 20 had an average operative time of 26 minutes less than cases 1-10), suggesting an ongoing learning curve., Conclusions: Surgeons who are well-experienced can be expected to have no or minimal learning curve for robotic MI-TLIF. Early attendings are likely to have a learning curve of around 21 cases with the attainment of mastery at case 31. Learning curve does not seem to impact clinical outcomes after surgery., Level of Evidence: Level 3., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design. Retrospective cohort. Objective. To compare navigation and robotics in terms of clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). Summary of Background Data. Although robotics has been shown to have advantages like reduced radiation exposure, greater screw size, and slightly better accuracy over navigation, none of the studies has compared these two modalities in terms of clinical outcomes. Methods. Patients who underwent single-level MI-TLIF using robotics or navigation and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The robotics and navigation groups were compared for improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), minimal clinically important difference, patient-acceptable symptom state, response on the global rating change scale, and screw related complication and reoperation rates. Results. A total of 278 patients (143 robotics, 135 navigation) were included. There was no significant difference between the robotics and navigation groups in the baseline demographics, operative variables, and preoperative PROMs. Both groups showed significant improvement in PROMs at below six and six months or above, with no significant difference in the magnitude of improvement between the two groups. Most patients achieved minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptom state and reported feeling better on the global rating change scale, with no significant difference in the proportions between the robotics and navigation groups. The screw-related complication and reoperation rates also showed no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions. Robotics did not seem to lead to significantly better clinical outcomes compared with navigation following MI-TLIF. Although the clinical outcomes may be similar, robotics offers the advantages of reduced radiation exposure, greater screw size, and slightly better accuracy over navigation. These advantages should be considered when determining the utility and cost-effectiveness of robotics in spine surgery. Larger multicenter prospective studies are required in the future to further investigate this subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]