Robot‐assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery – a systematic review and a meta‐analysis of comparative studies

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medical robotics has progressively become more compelling in modern orthopaedic surgery. Several studies comparing robot-assisted (RA) and freehand (FH) conventional techniques for pedicle screw fixation have been published, but the results are unclear. Here, we assessed current evidence regarding the efficiency, safety and accuracy of RA compared with FH techniques. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed to compare the differences between RA and FH in spine surgery. Two reviewers independently reviewed included studies, conducted a risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six retrospective comparative studies included a total of 750 patients (3625 pedicle screws). No significant differences were noted between RA and FH in pedicle screw accuracy (95.5% compared with 92.9%; odds ratio: 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 3.30; P=0.51), overall complication rate (1.33% compared with 3.45%; odds ratio: 0.46; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.43; P=0.18) and radiation exposure time (weighted mean difference [WMD]:8.49; 95% CI, -15.43 to 32.40; P=0.49). While RA was associated with a longer operative time (WMD: 39.63; 95% CI, 5.27 to 73.99; P= 0.02), percutaneous or minimal robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation (M-RA) had a shorter radiation exposure time than FH (WMD: -33.10; 95% CI, -38.18 to -28.02; P=0.00) CONCLUSIONS: The current literature did not prove that RA supersedes FH, although several studies are more optimistic about this procedure. Future well-designed RCTs assessing RA and FH are needed to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.