TY - JOUR
T1 - Robotic-guided sacro-pelvic fixation using S2 alar-iliac screws
T2 - feasibility and accuracy
AU - Hu, Xiaobang
AU - Lieberman, Isador H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
PY - 2017/3/1
Y1 - 2017/3/1
N2 - Purpose: To review our experience with robotic guided S2-alar iliac (S2AI) screw placement. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent S2AI fixation with robotic guidance. Screw placement and deviation from the preoperative plan were assessed by fusing preoperative CT (with the planned S2AI screws) to postoperative CT. The software’s measurement tool was used to compare the planned vs. actual screw placements in axial and lateral views, at entry point to the S2 pedicle and at a 30 mm depth at the screws’ mid-shaft, in a resolution of 0.1 mm. Medical charts were reviewed for technical issues and intra-operative complications. Results: 35 S2AI screws were reviewed in 18 patients. The patients’ mean age was 60 years. No intra-operative complications that related to the placement of S2AI screws were reported and robotic guidance was successful in all 35 screws. Post-operative CT scans showed that all trajectories were accurate. No violations of the iliac cortex or breaches of the anterior sacrum were noted. At the entry point, the screw deviated from the pre-operative plan by 3.0 ± 2.2 mm in the axial plane and 1.8 ± 1.6 mm in the lateral plane. At 30 mm depth, the screw deviated from the pre-operative plan by 2.1 ± 1.3 mm in the axial plane and 1.2 ± 1.1 mm in the lateral plane. Conclusions: Robotic guided S2AI screw placement is feasible and accurate. No screw malpositions or complications that related to the placement of S2AI screws occurred in this series. Larger studies are needed to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of robotic guided sacral-pelvic fixation.
AB - Purpose: To review our experience with robotic guided S2-alar iliac (S2AI) screw placement. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent S2AI fixation with robotic guidance. Screw placement and deviation from the preoperative plan were assessed by fusing preoperative CT (with the planned S2AI screws) to postoperative CT. The software’s measurement tool was used to compare the planned vs. actual screw placements in axial and lateral views, at entry point to the S2 pedicle and at a 30 mm depth at the screws’ mid-shaft, in a resolution of 0.1 mm. Medical charts were reviewed for technical issues and intra-operative complications. Results: 35 S2AI screws were reviewed in 18 patients. The patients’ mean age was 60 years. No intra-operative complications that related to the placement of S2AI screws were reported and robotic guidance was successful in all 35 screws. Post-operative CT scans showed that all trajectories were accurate. No violations of the iliac cortex or breaches of the anterior sacrum were noted. At the entry point, the screw deviated from the pre-operative plan by 3.0 ± 2.2 mm in the axial plane and 1.8 ± 1.6 mm in the lateral plane. At 30 mm depth, the screw deviated from the pre-operative plan by 2.1 ± 1.3 mm in the axial plane and 1.2 ± 1.1 mm in the lateral plane. Conclusions: Robotic guided S2AI screw placement is feasible and accurate. No screw malpositions or complications that related to the placement of S2AI screws occurred in this series. Larger studies are needed to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of robotic guided sacral-pelvic fixation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976299600&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976299600&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00586-016-4639-5
DO - 10.1007/s00586-016-4639-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 27272491
AN - SCOPUS:84976299600
SN - 0940-6719
VL - 26
SP - 720
EP - 725
JO - European Spine Journal
JF - European Spine Journal
IS - 3
ER -