PMID- 33332936
OWN - NLM
STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE
LR  - 20210416
IS  - 2586-6583 (Print)
IS  - 2586-6591 (Electronic)
IS  - 2586-6591 (Linking)
VI  - 18
IP  - 1
DP  - 2021 Mar
TI  - Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion 
      for Lumbar Degenerative Disease.
PG  - 98-105
LID - 10.14245/ns.2040294.147 [doi]
AB  - OBJECTIVE: There have been no clinical studies comparing different robotic 
      techniques. We compare minimally invasive, robot-guided transforaminal lumbar 
      interbody fusion (RGTLIF) and mini-open robot-guided posterior lumbar interbody 
      fusion (RG-PLIF). METHODS: Using data from a prospective institutional registry, 
      we identified 38 patients who underwent RG-PLIF. Propensity score matching using 
      a nearest-neighbor algorithm was implemented to select RG-TLIF controls. 
      Twelve-month patient-reported outcome measures are presented. A reduction of >/= 
      30% from baseline was defined as the minimum clinically important difference 
      (MCID). RESULTS: Among the 76 included patients, there was no difference between 
      RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF in surgical time (132.3 +/- 29.4 minutes vs. 156.5 +/- 53.0 
      minutes, p = 0.162), length of stay (55.9 +/- 20.0 hours vs. 57.2 +/- 18.8 hours, p = 
      0.683), and radiation dose area product (310.6 +/- 126.1 mGy x cm2 vs. 287.9 +/- 90.3 
      mGy x cm2, p = 0.370). However, while there was no difference among the 2 groups 
      in terms of raw postoperative patient-reported outcome measures scores (all p > 
      0.05), MCID in leg pain was greater for RG-PLIF (55.3% vs. 78.9%, p = 0.028), and 
      MCID in Oswestry Disability Index was greater for RG-TLIF (92.1% vs. 68.4%, p = 
      0.009). There was no difference concerning back pain (81.6% vs. 68.4%, p = 
      0.185). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that both RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF are viable 
      and equally effective techniques in robotic spine surgery.
FAU - Staartjes, Victor E
AU  - Staartjes VE
AD  - Department of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
AD  - Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, Clinical Neuroscience 
      Centre, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
AD  - Machine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience (MICN) Laboratory, University 
      Hospital Zurich, Clinical Neuroscience Centre, University of Zurich, Zurich, 
      Switzerland.
FAU - Battilana, Bianca
AU  - Battilana B
AD  - Machine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience (MICN) Laboratory, University 
      Hospital Zurich, Clinical Neuroscience Centre, University of Zurich, Zurich, 
      Switzerland.
FAU - Schroder, Marc L
AU  - Schroder ML
AD  - Department of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20201214
PL  - Korea (South)
TA  - Neurospine
JT  - Neurospine
JID - 101724936
CIN - Neurospine. 2021 Mar;18(1):106-108. PMID: 33819938
PMC - PMC8021835
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Posterior lumbar interbody fusion
OT  - Robot
OT  - Robotics
OT  - Spinal fusion
OT  - Spondylolisthesis
OT  - Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
COIS- The authors have nothing to disclose.
EDAT- 2020/12/18 06:00
MHDA- 2020/12/18 06:01
PMCR- 2021/03/01
CRDT- 2020/12/17 18:17
PHST- 2020/05/23 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2020/08/26 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2020/12/18 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2020/12/18 06:01 [medline]
PHST- 2020/12/17 18:17 [entrez]
PHST- 2021/03/01 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - ns.2040294.147 [pii]
AID - ns-2040294-147 [pii]
AID - 10.14245/ns.2040294.147 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Neurospine. 2021 Mar;18(1):98-105. doi: 10.14245/ns.2040294.147. Epub 2020 Dec 
      14.