• Asham Khan, Joshua E Meyers, Samantha Yavorek, Timothy E O'Connor, Ioannis Siasios, Jeffrey P Mullin, and John Pollina.
• Department of Neurosurgery, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Buffalo General Medical Center, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA.
• World Neurosurg. 2019 Mar 1; 123: e474-e481.

ObjectiveTo study the differences between robot-guided (Mazor X, Mazor Robotics Ltd., Caesarea, Israel) and 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) navigation (O-arm Surgical Imaging System, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA) for the insertion of pedicle screws.MethodsWe reviewed the charts of 50 patients who underwent robot-guided pedicle screw insertion (between May 2017-October 2017), and 49 patients who underwent 3D-CT navigation pedicle screw insertion (between September 2015-August 2016). Variables included were age, sex, body mass index, blood loss, length of stay, lumbar level(s), operation time, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, accuracy, and time-per-screw placement.ResultsMean ages were 59.3 years in the robotic group and 58.2 years in the 3D-CT navigation group. Mean was 30.7 kg/m2 in the robotic group and 32.1 kg/m2 in the 3D-CT navigation group. Mean time-per-screw placement was 3.7 minutes for the robotic group and 6.8 minutes for the 3D-CT navigation group, P < 0.001. In the robotic group, 189 of 190 screws were placed with Ravi grade I accuracy, and 1 was grade II. In the 3D-CT navigation group, 157 of 165 screws were Ravi grade I, and 8 were grade II (P = 0.11). Fluoroscopy time (P < 0.001), time-per-screw placement (P < 0.001), and length of stay (P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the robotic group.ConclusionsBoth technologies are safe and accurate. Robotic technology exposed patients to less fluoroscopy time, decreased time-per-screw placement and shorter hospital stay than 3D-CT navigation. Further studies are warranted to verify our results.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…