Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2021; 16(04): 759-764
DOI: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_558_20
Original Article

Postoperative outcome of robot-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A pilot study

Sultan Alsalmi
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Amiens Picardie University Medical Center, Jules Verne University of Picardie, Amiens, France
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
,
Mohammad Alsofyani
3   Department of Orthopedic, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hail, Hail
,
Abdulgadir Bugdadi
4   Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
5   Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Umm Al Qura University, Makkah Almukarramah, Saudi Arabia
,
Abdu Alkhairi
6   Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Paris Descartes, Paris
,
Johann Peltier
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Amiens Picardie University Medical Center, Jules Verne University of Picardie, Amiens, France
,
Michel Lefranc
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Amiens Picardie University Medical Center, Jules Verne University of Picardie, Amiens, France
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Introduction: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery is well established for the treatment of discopathy, foraminal disc herniation, and recurrent disc herniation. At the Amiens university medical center, we have been using a robot-assisted technique for performing the TLIF. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the radiological and clinical outcome, specifically pain, of patients having undergone robot-assisted TLIF. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients having undergone minimally invasive (MI) robot-assisted TLIF between November 2014 and July 2018 in a French university medical center. In clinical consultations at 6 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months posttreatment, patients were assessed for back and leg pain (on a visual analog scale), breached screws, and sagittal parameters. Results: A total of 136 pedicle screws were inserted with robot guidance into 32 patients. Four of the patients required laminectomy before fusion. No pedicle breach occurred for 94% of the screws, and no joint violation was observed for 90%. Lordosis was improved in 78% of the cases. Conclusions: The robot provides valuable assistance during MI arthrodesis; it facilitates the surgical procedure by preplanning the trajectory, providing instantaneous navigation and tracking, and thus assure the accuracy of screw positioning.

Key-words:

Degenerative - lumbar spine fusion - minimally invasive spine surgery - robot-assisted surgery - screw position - spinal instrumentation - spine disease - transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.




Publication History

Received: 27 December 2020

Accepted: 02 March 2021

Article published online:
16 August 2022

© 2021. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Harms JG, Jeszenszky D. Posterior lumbar interbodu Fusion in unilateraler transforaminaler technique. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 1998;10:90-102. German. doi: 10.1007/s00064-006-0112-7. PMID: 17332991.
  • 2 Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 2005;14:551-8.
  • 3 Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:S26-35.
  • 4 Lieber AM, Kirchner GJ, Kerbel YE, Khalsa AS. Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement fails to reduce overall postoperative complications in fusion surgery. Spine J 2019;19:212-7.
  • 5 Chenin L, Capel C, Fichten A, Peltier J, Lefranc M. Evaluation of screw placement accuracy in circumferential lumbar arthrodesis using robotic assistance and intraoperative flat-panel computed tomography. World Neurosurg 2017;105:86-94.
  • 6 Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: A comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain 1975;1:379-84.
  • 7 Ravi B, Zahrai A, Rampersaud R. Clinical accuracy of computer-assisted two-dimensional fluoroscopy for the percutaneous placement of lumbosacral pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:84-91.
  • 8 Jia L, Yu Y, Khan K, Li F, Zhu R, Zeng Z, et al. Superior facet joint violations during single level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A preliminary retrospective clinical study. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:6152769.
  • 9 Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:567-71.
  • 10 Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): Technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005;18 Suppl:S1-6.
  • 11 Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery 2001;48:569-74.
  • 12 Babu R, Park JG, Mehta AI, Shan T, Grossi PM, Brown CR, et al. Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Neurosurgery 2012;71:962-70.
  • 13 Ringel F, Stüer C, Reinke A, Preuss A, Behr M, Auer F, et al. Accuracy of robot-assisted placement of lumbar and sacral pedicle screws: A prospective randomized comparison to conventional freehand screw implantation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E496-501.
  • 14 Kim HJ, Jung WI, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kang KT, Yeom JS. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery. Int J Med Robot 2017;13:e1779.
  • 15 Ohba T, Ebata S, Fujita K, Sato H, Haro H. Percutaneous pedicle screw placements: Accuracy and rates of cranial facet joint violation using conventional fluoroscopy compared with intraoperative three-dimensional computed tomography computer navigation. Eur Spine J 2016;25:1775-80.
  • 16 Yson SC, Sembrano JN, Sanders PC, Santos ER, Ledonio CG, Polly DW Jr. Comparison of cranial facet joint violation rates between open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement using intraoperative 3-D CT (O-arm) computer navigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:E251-8.
  • 17 Lau D, Terman SW, Patel R, La Marca F, Park P. Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A comparative analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:356-61.
  • 18 Yamasaki K, Hoshino M, Omori K, Igarashi H, Nemoto Y, Tsuruta T, et al. Risk factors of adjacent segment disease after transforaminal inter-body fusion for degenerative lumbar disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:E86-92.
  • 19 Recnik G, Košak R, Vengust R. Influencing segmental balance in isthmic spondylolisthesis using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;26:246-51.
  • 20 Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2024-9.
  • 21 Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: Dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1982;120:343-7.