RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The study investigated our institutional learning curve for the ROSA ONE spine system (ROSA) based on ROSA usage time. METHODS: ROSA was designed to provide high accuracy for spinal pedicle screw placement through a built-in tracking technique. This study was conducted from November 2018 to January 2021. The time taken to complete each step of the robotic workflow was recorded. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical indications, and number of screw placements were examined in subgroup analysis. The Curve Fitting-General package (a part of NCSS 2021 software) was used to fit a mathematical model to the learning curve. Patient demographics, imaging data, and surgical time were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients who had undergone surgery were included. The mean total ROSA usage time was 107.1 ± 27.3 minutes. The estimated learning rate was 90.4%, and the largest slope change occurred close to the time of the 20th surgery. The observed overall learning trend in the 4-screw group could be attributed to screw planning. The presence of scoliosis (p = 0.73) or spondylolisthesis (p = 0.70) did not significantly influence the mean total time (TT) for all patients; however, the mean TT differed significantly (p < 0.01) among subgroups stratified by body mass index, screw number placement, and thoracic spine involvement. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the learning curve for the various crucial steps of ROSA-guided pedicle screw placement. The indicative learning curve involved 20 patients who had undergone surgery.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is one of the most aggressive malignant brain tumors. Intracranial GBM metastases to the spine are rarely detected clinically. Secondary gliosarcomas after treatment of primary GBM are rarely described. CASE PRESENTATION: Herein, we report the case of a 53-year-old woman who presented to our emergency room with progressive headache and weakness on the left side. Plain computed tomography and contrast magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed an approximately 6.8 cm × 4.5 cm right temporoparietooccipital intraaxial cystic tumor with surrounding diffuse perifocal edema that caused midline shift toward the left. Emergency craniotomy was performed to remove the tumor, and pathological examination revealed GBM. The patient received proton beam therapy, Gliadel implantation, and oral temozolomide chemotherapy as well as targeted therapy with bevacizumab. Approximately 15 months after diagnosis, she underwent surgical resection of the right temporal recurrent tumor and was newly diagnosed as having a metastatic spinal tumor. Pathologically, the right temporal and metastatic spinal tumors were gliosarcoma and GBM, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent spinal metastasis and gliosarcomatous transformation, which are two types of GBM complications, are rare. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a case of recurrent GBM with gliosarcoma after proton bean therapy.
