Rebecca Zelmanovich BS¹*, Alex Lee-Norris DO² and Praveen Reddy MD³

¹College of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
²Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Central Florida College of Medicine/HCA Healthcare Consortium, Ocala, FL, USA
³Department of Neurosurgery, University of Central Florida College of Medicine/HCA Healthcare Consortium, Ocala, FL, USA

*Corresponding Author: Rebecca Zelmanovich BS, College of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.

Received: March 13, 2023; Published: April 06, 2023

Abstract

Objective: The treatment of adjacent segment disease (ASD) following lumbar fusion is common and often requires reoperation. Traditionally, reoperation requires revision and exposure of prior instrumentation, and removal of this hardware increases operative time and perioperative risks. The authors report on the use of robot-assisted navigation (RAN) to accomplish minimally-invasive posterior pedicle screw fixation, including pedicle re-instrumentation when needed, to treat ASD and avoid revision and exposure of prior hardware.

Methods: A retrospective review of five patients treated for lumbar ASD with posterior fixation was conducted. All screw trajectories were planned preoperatively using the robotic software. All patients underwent minimally-invasive decompression and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion followed by robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for fixation. Basic demographics, operative indications, pre-operative planning data, perioperative outcomes and short-term clinical outcomes were evaluated.

Results: The mean age was 71.2 years, mean total operative time was 117.6 minutes (range: 98 - 140 minutes), mean operative time per screw was 27.2 minutes, mean estimated blood loss was 30mL (range: 25 - 50 mL), mean body mass index was 36.64 (range: 26.7 - 46.9), and mean length of stay was 1.2 days (range: 1-2 days). A total of six screws were placed in previously instrumented pedicles without removing prior hardware, four in a cortical bone trajectory and two in a transpedicular trajectory (TPT). In one patient with both distal and proximal ASD, pedicle re-instrumentation was avoided altogether, creating a construct caudal, rostral and medial to index fusion. Patients were successfully treated for both single- and multi-level ASD. There were no perioperative complications. One patient was lost to follow-up. The remaining four patients had acceptable outcomes at short-term clinical follow-up.

Conclusion: The authors present a novel application of RAN for the treatment of ASD which obviates the need for revision of prior hardware. To our knowledge, this is the first report of multilevel ASD treatment that avoided revision, as well as the first report of pedicle re-instrumentation in a TPT adjacent to a prior transpedicular screw. This method maintained low operative time and acceptable perioperative outcomes. RAN may offer a minimally-invasive and effective treatment option for patients with ASD that avoids revision of prior hardware and reduces perioperative risk. Long-term clinical outcomes are warranted to ensure clinical and biomechanical durability.

Keywords: Robot-Assisted Navigation; Adjacent Segment Disease; Lumbar Spine; Degenerative Spine Disease; Robotics

References

1. Tobert DG., et al. “Adjacent Segment Disease in the Cervical and Lumbar Spine”. Clinical Spine Surgery3 (2017).
2. Burch MB., et al. “Incidence and risk factors of reoperation in patients with adjacent segment disease: A meta-analysis”. Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine1 (2020): 9-16.
3. Rajaee SS., et al. “Spinal Fusion in the United States: Analysis of Trends From 1998 to 2008”. Spine1 (2012).
4. Turel MK., et al. “Minimally invasive options for surgical management of adjacent segment disease of the lumbar spine”. Neurology India 3 (2018): 755-762.
5. Ghiselli G., et al. “Adjacent Segment Degeneration in the Lumbar Spine”. JBJS7 (2004).
6. Zheng F., et al. “Factors Predicting Hospital Stay, Operative Time, Blood Loss, and Transfusion in Patients Undergoing Revision Posterior Lumbar Spine Decompression, Fusion, and Segmental Instrumentation”. Spine8 (2002).
7. Yolcu YU., et al. “Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery for Degenerative Spine Disorders for Elderly Patients: Experiences from a Single Institution”. World Neurosurgery 146 (2021): e1262-e1269.
8. MURALIDHARAN A., et al. “Postoperative Neurological Complications Following Revision Spine Surgery: A State Inpatient Database Analysis”. International Journal of Spine Surgery 4 (2020): 607.
9. Good CR., et al. “Complications and Revision Rates in Minimally Invasive Robotic-Guided Versus Fluoroscopic-Guided Spinal Fusions: The MIS ReFRESH Prospective Comparative Study”. Spine23 (2021).
10. Bortz C., et al. “Complication Risk in Primary and Revision Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparable Alternative to Conventional Open Techniques?” Global Spine Journal5 (2020): 619-626.
11. Hu X., et al. “Robotic assisted surgeries for the treatment of spine tumors”. International Journal of Spine Surgery 9 (2015): 1.
12. D’Souza M., et al. “Robotic-Assisted Spine Surgery: History, Efficacy, Cost, And Future Trends”. Robotic Surgery: Research and Reviews 6 (2019): 9-23.
13. Staub BN and Sadrameli SS. “The use of robotics in minimally invasive spine surgery”. Journal of Spine Surgery (Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery)1 (2019).
14. Mao JZ., et al. “Technologic Evolution of Navigation and Robotics in Spine Surgery: A Historical Perspective”. World Neurosurgery 145 (2021): 159-167.
15. Yu T., et al. “Robot-assisted versus navigation-assisted screw placement in spinal vertebrae”. International Orthopaedics2 (2023): 527-532.
16. Li Y., et al. “Accuracy and safety of robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw placement: a comparison of robot-assisted technique with fluoroscopy-assisted approach”. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders1 (2022): 328.
17. Ong V., et al. “A Comparison of Spinal Robotic Systems and Pedicle Screw Accuracy Rates: Review of Literature and Meta-Analysis”. Asian Journal of Neurosurgery4 (2022): 547-556.
18. Fan Y., et al. “Accuracy of pedicle screw placement comparing robot-assisted technology and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided method in spine surgery: An updated meta-analysis”. Medicine22 (2018).
19. Molliqaj G., et al. “Accuracy of robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery”. Neurosurgical Focus FOC5 (2017): E14.
20. Melikian R and Yeremian S. “Placement of Unilateral Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws in Previously Instrumented Pedicle without Removal of Existing Hardware for Adjacent Segment Disease”.”. Case Reports in Orthopedics 2021 (2021): 9994539.
21. Rho K., et al. “Minimally Invasive Robot-Guided Dual Cortical Bone Trajectory for Adjacent Segment Disease”. Cureus8 (2021): e16822.
22. Rodriguez A., et al. “Novel placement of cortical bone trajectory screws in previously instrumented pedicles for adjacent-segment lumbar disease using CT image-guided navigation: Technical note”. Neurosurgical Focus FOC3 (2014): E9.
23. Jiang L., et al. “Double Pedicle Screw Instrumentation in the Osteoporotic Spine: A Biomechanical Feasibility Study”. Clinical Spine Surgery6 (2007).
24. Bydon M., et al. “Initiation of a Robotic Program in Spinal Surgery: Experience at a Three-Site Medical Center”. Mayo Clinic Proceedings5 (2021): 1193-1202.
25. Menger Richard Philip Savardekar Amey R., et al. “A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Integration of Robotic Spine Technology in Spine Surgery”. Neurospine3 (2018): 216-224.
26. Farber SH., et al. “Robotics in Spine Surgery: A Technical Overview and Review of Key Concepts”. Frontiers in Surgery 8 (2021).
27. Wang MY., et al. “Acute Hospital Costs After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Data From a US National Database With 6106 Patients”. Clinical Spine Surgery6 (2012).
28. Kantelhardt SR., et al. “Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement”. European Spine Journal6 (2011): 860-868.
29. Hyun SJ., et al. “Minimally Invasive Robotic Versus Open Fluoroscopic-guided Spinal Instrumented Fusions: A Randomized Controlled Trial”. Spine6 (2017).
30. Phan K., et al. “Anesthesia Duration as an Independent Risk Factor for Early Postoperative Complications in Adults Undergoing Elective ACDF”. Global Spine Journal8 (2017): 727-734.
31. Cheng H., et al. “Prolonged operative duration is associated with complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Surgical Research 229 (2018): 134-144.
32. Kurtz SM., et al. “Infection risk for primary and revision instrumented lumbar spine fusion in the Medicare population: Clinical article”. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine SPI4 (2012): 342-347.
33. Park P., et al. “Adjacent Segment Disease after Lumbar or Lumbosacral Fusion: Review of the Literature”. Spine17 (2004).
34. Lawrence BD., et al. “Predicting the Risk of Adjacent Segment Pathology After Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review”. Spine (2021): 37.
35. Staheli B and Rondeau B. “Anesthetic Considerations in the Geriatric Population”. In: StatPearls. StarPearls Publishing (2022).
36. Strøm C., et al. “Should general anaesthesia be avoided in the elderly?” Anaesthesias1 (2014): 35-44.
37. et al. “Satellite-based communications security: A survey of threats, solutions, and research challenges”. Computer Networks (2022): 109246.

Citation

Citation: Rebecca Zelmanovich BS., et al. “Novel Applications of Robot-Assisted Navigation in the Treatment of Lumbar Adjacent Segment Disease: A Case Series". Acta Scientific Neurology 6.5 (2023): 100-109.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Rebecca Zelmanovich BS., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.