Minimally Invasive Posterior Facet Decortication and Fusion Using Navigated Robotic Guidance: Feasibility and Workflow Optimization

Minimally invasive spine surgery reduces tissue dissection and retraction, decreasing the morbidity associated with traditional open spine surgery by decreasing blood loss, blood transfusion, complications, and pain. One of the key challenges with a minimally invasive approach is achieving consistent posterior fusion. Although advantageous in all fusion surgeries, solid posterior fusion is particularly important in spinal deformity, revisions, and fusions without anterior column support. A minimally invasive surgical approach accomplished without sacrificing the quality of the posterior fusion has the potential to decrease both short- and long-term complications compared to the traditional open techniques. Innovations in navigated and robotic-assisted spine surgery continue to address this need. In this article, we will outline the feasibility of achieving posterior facet fusion using the Mazor X Stealth Edition Robotic Guidance System

Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement: lessons learned from the first 102 patients. Eur Spine J 2013;22:661-6. Disclosures Xiaobang Hu received a travel support for lecturing from Mazor Robotics in 2011. Donna D. Ohnmeiss is employed by a foundation th

Abstract Introduction Surgeons' interest in image and/or robotic guidance for spinal implant placement is increasing. This technology is continually improving and may be particularly useful in patients with challenging anatomy. Only through careful clinical evaluation can its successful applications, limitations, and areas for improvement be defined. This study evaluates the outcomes of robotic-assisted screw placement in a consecutive series of 102 patients. Methods Data were recorded from technical notes and operative records created immediately following each surgery case, in which the robotic system was used to guide pedicle screw placement. All cases were performed at the same hospital by a single surgeon. The majority of patients had spinal deformity and/or previous spine surgery. Each planned screw placement was classified as: (1) successful/ accurately placed screw using robotic guidance; (2) screw malpositioned using robot; (3) use of robot aborted and screw placed manually; (4) planned screw not placed as screw deemed non essential for construct stability. Data from each case were reviewed by two independent researchers to indentify the diagnosis, number of attempted robotic guided screw placements and the outcome of the attempted placement as well as complications or reasons for non-placement. Results Robotic-guided screw placement was successfully used in 95 out of 102 patients. In those 95 patients, 949 screws (87.5 % of 1,085 planned screws) were successfully implanted. Eleven screws (1.0 %) placed using the robotic system were misplaced (all presumably due to ''skiving'' of the drill bit or trocar off the side of the facet). Robotic guidance was aborted and 110 screws (10.1 %) were manually placed, generally due to poor registration and/or technical trajectory issues. Fifteen screws (1.4 %) were not placed after intraoperative determination that the screw was not essential for construct stability. The robot was not used as planned in seven patients, one due to severe deformity, one due to very high body mass index, one due to extremely poor bone quality, one due to registration difficulty caused by previously placed loosened hardware, one due to difficulty with platform mounting and two due to device technical issues. Conclusion Of the 960 screws that were implanted using the robot, 949 (98.9 %) were successfully and accurately implanted and 11 (1.1 %) were malpositioned, despite the fact that the majority of patients had significant spinal deformities and/or previous spine surgeries. ''Tool skiving'' was thought to be the inciting issue with the misplaced screws. Intraoperative anteroposterior and oblique fluoroscopic imaging for registration is critical and was the limiting issue in four of the seven aborted cases

A Comparison of Muscular Activity During Gait Between Walking Sticks and a Walker in Patients With Adult Degenerative Scoliosis

© 2018 Scoliosis Research Society Study Design: A repeated measurement, single-center, prospective study. Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast the benefits of walking sticks versus a walker on the trunk and lower extremity muscular control in patients with adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS). Summary of Background Data: ADS patients demonstrate an altered gait pattern. Walking aids help maintain mobility in those patients. Whereas a walker forces patients into kyphosis, the higher grips of walking sticks allows for more upright posture, arm swing, and improved sagittal alignment. Methods: Twenty ADS patients with symptomatic degenerative scoliosis performed over-ground walking at self-selected speed under 3 testing conditions: 1) with walking sticks (WS); 2) with walker (WR); and 3) without any device (ND). Trunk and lower extremity peak muscle activation, time to peak muscle activity, muscle duration, muscle onset, and integrated electromyography (iEMG) were measured and compared. Results: The use of WS produced increases in muscle activity in the external oblique (WS: 44.3% vs. WR: 7.4% of submaximum voluntary contraction [sMVC], p = .007) and medial gastrocnemius (WS: 78.8% vs ND: 43.7% of sMVC, p = .027) in comparison to the walker and no device, respectively. When using WS, shorter muscle activity time was observed for rectus femoris (WS: 62.9% vs. WR: 88.8% of gait cycle, p = .001), semitendinosus (WS: 64.3% vs. WR: 93.0% of gait cycle, p = .003), tibialis anterius (WS: 59.4% vs. WR: 85.1% of gait cycle, p = .001), and medial gastrocnemius (WS: 67.3% vs. WR: 98.0% of gait cycle, p = .006) in comparison to the walker. Conclusions: The use of walking sticks can potentially promote trunk and lower extremity neuromuscular control and gait mechanics comparable to gait without any assistive devices. Although the differences in magnitudes between comparisons were small and should be cautiously interpreted on a case-by-case basis, based on this study\u27s results and our anecdotal experience treating patients with ADS, we recommend the use of walking sticks to assist with their gait prior to and after surgical intervention. Level of Evidence: Level III

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Surgical Techniques and Disease Management

The use of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has grown rapidly over the last decade and remains the fastest growing area in spine surgery. Now in a revised and expanded second edition including 19 new chapters, this comprehensive textbook provides an updated presentation of the field of MISS, highlighting surgical techniques and clinical outcomes as well as providing a unique focus on how these techniques are applied for specific spinal conditions. Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Second Edition includes detailed discussions of enabling technologies, surgical techniques, approaches to specific diseases and conditions, a new section on out-patient/ambulatory spine surgery, and strategies to manage the unique risks and complications associated with MISS. Each chapter, whether revised or new, is formatted in a consistent manner, including bulleted key learning points as well as review questions, pearls and pitfalls, and generous illustrations and intra-operative photographs. Written and edited by thought leaders in the field, this user-friendly textbook will be an essential resource for orthopedic and neurosurgery trainees, as well as a valuable reference and review for spine surgeons and health care professionals who treat the spine