Comparison of robot-assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement for lumbar revision surgery.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw implantation is a safe and effective method in lumbar surgery, but it still remains controversial in lumbar revision surgery. This study evaluated the clinical safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus freehand pedicle screw implantation in lumbar revision surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective study. From January 2018 to December 2019, 81 patients underwent posterior lumbar revision surgery in our hospital. Among them, 39 patients underwent revision surgery performed with robot-assisted pedicle screw implantation (Renaissance robotic system), whereas the remaining 42 patients underwent traditional freehand pedicle screw implantation. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and X-ray before revision surgery. The sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, operative time, blood loss, operative segments, intra-operative fluoroscopy time, and complications were compared between the two groups. The accuracy of pedicle screw implantation was measured on CT scans based on Gertzbein Robbins grading, and the invasion of superior level facet joint was evaluated by Babu's method. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference about the baseline between the two groups (P > 0.05). Although there were no significant differences in operative time and complications between the two groups (P > 0.05), the robot-assisted group had significantly less intra-operative blood loss and shorter intra-operative fluoroscopy times than the freehand group (P < 0.05). In the robot-assisted group, a total of 267 screws were inserted, which were marked as grade A in 250, grade B in 13, grade C in four, and no grade D or E in any screw. In terms of invasion of superior level facet joint, a total of 78 screws were inserted in the robot-assisted group, which were marked as grade 0 in 73, grade 1 in four, grade 2 in one, and grade 3 in zero. By comparison, 288 screws were placed in total in the freehand group, which were rated as grade A in 251, grade B in 28, grade C in eight, grade D in one, and no grade E in any screw. A total of 82 superior level facet joint screws were inserted in freehand group, which were marked as grade 0 in 62, grade one in 18, grade 2 in two, and grade 3 in zero. The robot-assisted technique was statistically superior to the freehand method in the accuracy of screw placement (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with freehand screw implantation, in lumbar revision surgery, the Renaissance robot had higher accuracy and safety of pedicle screw implantation, fewer superior level facet joint violations, and less intra-operative blood loss and intra-operative fluoroscopy time.

[Causes prevention and treatment for cerebrospinal leak after lumbar revision surgery].

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the causes and explore the measures of prevention and treatment of the cerebrospinal leak after lumbar revision surgery. METHODS: The clinical data of 24 patients(17.78%) with cerebrospinal leak among 135 cases after lumbar revision surgery from January 2011 to January 2016 was retrospectively studied. Of them, 12 cases due to severe adhesion caused by scar formation; 4 cases due to yellow ligament hyperplasia adhesion with dura mater occurred dural tears when separating adhesion; 2 cases with severe hyperplasia and ossification of lumbar posterior longitudinal ligament occurred dural tears when revealing intervertebral disk; 2 cases due to improper nailing happened dural tears during operation. And the other 4 cases without obvious dural tears in surgery, occurred cerebrospinal leak one to two days after surgery. And the 24 patients were treated with the measures of prevention and treatment preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with cerebrospinal leak were cured after treatment and were follow-up for 6 to 30 months. No recurrence of cerebrospinal leake or local and systemic complications were found. CONCLUSIONS: Scar formation is the main cause of cerebrospinal leak in lumbar revision surgery. As for lumbar revision surgery, as long as the standard control measures are taken, it can significantly reduce the incidence of cerebrospinal leak, achieve better clinical efficacy, and fundamentally solve the cerebrospinal leak problem that has plagued both doctors and patients for a long time.

Causes prevention and treatment for cerebrospinal leak after lumbar revision surgery / 中国骨伤

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To analyze the causes and explore the measures of prevention and treatment of the cerebrospinal leak after lumbar revision surgery.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>The clinical data of 24 patients(17.78%) with cerebrospinal leak among 135 cases after lumbar revision surgery from January 2011 to January 2016 was retrospectively studied. Of them, 12 cases due to severe adhesion caused by scar formation; 4 cases due to yellow ligament hyperplasia adhesion with dura mater occurred dural tears when separating adhesion; 2 cases with severe hyperplasia and ossification of lumbar posterior longitudinal ligament occurred dural tears when revealing intervertebral disk; 2 cases due to improper nailing happened dural tears during operation. And the other 4 cases without obvious dural tears in surgery, occurred cerebrospinal leak one to two days after surgery. And the 24 patients were treated with the measures of prevention and treatment preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Twenty-four patients with cerebrospinal leak were cured after treatment and were follow-up for 6 to 30 months. No recurrence of cerebrospinal leake or local and systemic complications were found.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Scar formation is the main cause of cerebrospinal leak in lumbar revision surgery. As for lumbar revision surgery, as long as the standard control measures are taken, it can significantly reduce the incidence of cerebrospinal leak, achieve better clinical efficacy, and fundamentally solve the cerebrospinal leak problem that has plagued both doctors and patients for a long time.</p>