Introduction: Pediatric spinal deformity involves a complex 3-dimensional (3D) deformity that increases the risk of pedicle screw placement due to the close proximity of neurovascular structures. To increase screw accuracy, improve patient safety, and minimize surgical complications, the placement of pedicle screws is evolving from freehand techniques to computer-assisted navigation and to the introduction of robotic-assisted placement. Purpose: The aim of this review was to review the current literature on the use of robotic navigation in pediatric spinal deformity surgery to provide both an error analysis of these techniques and to provide recommendations to ensure its safe application. Methods: A narrative review was conducted in April 2021 using the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. Studies were included if they were peer-reviewed retrospective or prospective studies, included pediatric patients, included a primary diagnosis of pediatric spine deformity, utilized robotic-assisted spinal surgery techniques, and reported thoracic or lumbar pedicle screw breach rates or pedicle screw malpositioning. Results: In the few studies published on the use of robotic techniques in pediatric spinal deformity surgery, several found associations between the technology and increased rates of screw placement accuracy, reduced rates of breach, and minimal complications. All were retrospective studies. Conclusions: Current literature is of a low level of evidence; nonetheless, the findings suggest the accuracy and safety of robotic-assisted spinal surgery in pediatric pedicle screw placement. The introduction of robotics may drive further advances in less invasive pediatric spinal deformity surgery. Further study is warranted.
AlhammoudAAlbornoYBacoAM, et al. Minimally invasive scoliosis surgery is a feasible option for management of idiopathic scoliosis and has equivalent outcomes to open surgery: a meta-analysis [published online ahead of print February 9, 2021]. Global Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568220988267.
2.
AnandNBaronEMKhandehrooBKahwatyS.Long-term 2- to 5-year clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(18):1566–1575. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829cb67a.
3.
AnandNBaronEMThaiyananthanGKhalsaKGoldsteinTB.Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(7):459–467.
4.
AnandNRosemannRKhalsaBBaronEM.Mid-term to long-term clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive correction and fusion for adults with scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E6.
5.
ChanAParentENarvacanKSanCLouE.Intraoperative image guidance compared with free-hand methods in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis posterior spinal surgery: a systematic review on screw-related complications and breach rates. Spine J. 2017;17:1215–1229.
6.
ChanAParentEWongJNarvacanKSanCLouE.Does image guidance decrease pedicle screw-related complications in surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review update and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2020;29:694–716.
7.
CharalampidisAJiangFWilsonJRFBadhiwalaJHBrodkeDSFehlingsMG.The use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2020;10(suppl 1):104S–114S. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219859314.
8.
ChouDMummaneniPAnandN, et al. Treatment of the fractional curve of adult scoliosis with circumferential minimally invasive surgery versus traditional, open surgery: an analysis of surgical outcomes. Global Spine J. 2018;8(8):827–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568218775069.
9.
ChouDMundisGWangM, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for mild-to-moderate adult spinal deformities: impact on intensive care unit and hospital stay. World Neurosurg. 2019;127:e649–e655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.237.
10.
de BodmanCAnsorgeATabard-FougèreAAmirghasemiNDayerR. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally-invasive surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at a minimum two years’ follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(4):506–512.
11.
Di SilvestreMParisiniPLolliFBakaloudisG. Complications of thoracic pedicle screws in scoliosis treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1655–1661.
12.
DownsSHBlackN.The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–384.
FlynnJMSakaiDS.Improving safety in spinal deformity surgery: advances in navigation and neurologic monitoring. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(suppl 2):S131–S137.
16.
GonzalezDGhesseseSCookDHedequistD. Initial intraoperative experience with robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement with stealth navigation in pediatric spine deformity: an evaluation of the first 40 cases [published online ahead of print October 22, 2020]. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01159-3.
17.
HicksJMSinglaAShenFHArletV.Complications of pedicle screw fixation in scoliosis surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(11):E465–E470.
18.
HuXOhnmeissDDLiebermanIH.Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement: lessons learned from the first 102 patients. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(3):661–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2499-1.
KarkennyAJMendelisJRGellerDSGomezJA.The role of intraoperative navigation in orthopaedic surgery. J Am Acad Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2019;27(19):e849–e858.
21.
KericNDoenitzCHajA, et al. Evaluation of robot-guided minimally invasive implantation of 2067 pedicle screws. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E11. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.2.FOCUS16552.
22.
KwanMKChiuCKGaniSMA, et al. Accuracy and safety of pedicle screw placement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients: a review of 2020 screws using computed tomography assessment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42:326–335.
23.
LarattaJLHaAShillingfordJN, et al. Neuromonitoring in spinal deformity surgery: a multimodality approach. Global Spine J. 2018;8(1):68–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217706970.
24.
LarsonANPollyDWJrGuideraKJ, et al. The accuracy of navigation and 3D image-guided placement for the placement of pedicle screws in congenital spine deformity. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012;32(6):e23–e29. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e318263a39e.
25.
LarsonANSantosERPollyDWJr, et al. Pediatric pedicle screw placement using intraoperative computed tomography and 3-dimensional image-guided navigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(3):E188–E194. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822a2e0a.
26.
LeeKYLeeJHKangKC, et al. Minimally invasive multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion with posterior column osteotomy compared with pedicle subtraction osteotomy for adult spinal deformity. Spine J. 2020;20(6):925–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.12.001.
27.
LenkeLGKukloTROndraSPollyDWJr.Rationale behind the current state-of-the-art treatment of scoliosis (in the pedicle screw era). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:1051–1054.
28.
LovecchioFQureshiSA.The current state of minimally invasive approaches to adult spinal deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019;12(3):318–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09570-6.
29.
MackeJJWooRVarichL.Accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the pediatric population. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(2):145–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0587-7.
30.
MehinRBurnettRSBrasherPM.Does the new generation of high-flex knee prostheses improve the postoperative range of movement? a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(10):1429–1434.
31.
MengXTGuanXFZhangHLHeSS.Computer navigation versus fluoroscopy-guided navigation for thoracic pedicle screw placement: a meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev. 2016;39(3):385–391.
32.
MiyanjiFSamdaniA.Minimally invasive surgery for AIS: an early prospective comparison with standard open posterior surgery. J Spine. 2013;S5:1–4.
33.
MorseKWSuEP.Hip resurfacing arthroplasty for patients with inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review. Hip Int. 2018;28(1):11–17.
34.
MorseKWHeathMAvrumovaF, et al. Comprehensive error analysis for robotic-assisted placement of pedicle screws in pediatric spinal deformity: the initial learning curve [published online ahead of print April 29, 2021]. J Pediatr Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001842.
35.
OthmanYAAlhammoudAAldahamshehOVaishnavASGangCHQureshiSA.Minimally invasive spine lumbar surgery in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HSS J. 2020;16(2):168–176.
36.
OvadiaDKornAFishkinMSteinbergDMWientroubSOfiramE.The contribution of an electronic conductivity device to the safety of pedicle screw insertion in scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(20):E1314–E1321. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822a82ec.
37.
ParentSLabelleHSkalliWLatimerBde GuiseJ.Morphometric analysis of anatomic scoliotic specimens. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:2305–2311.
38.
PatelPDCansecoJAHoulihanNGabayAGrassoGVaccaroAR.Overview of minimally invasive spine surgery. World Neurosurg. 2020;142:43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.06.043.
39.
RajasekaranSVidyadharaSRameshPShettyAP.Randomized clinical study to compare the accuracy of navigated and non-navigated thoracic pedicle screws in deformity correction surgeries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(2):E56–E64. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000252094.64857.ab.
40.
RaynorBLLenkeLGBridwellKHTaylorBAPadbergAM.Correlation between low triggered electromyographic thresholds and lumbar pedicle screw malposition: analysis of 4857 screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(24):2673–2678. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a524f.
41.
Rodriguez-OlaverriJCZimickNCMerolaA, et al. Using triggered electromyographic threshold in the intercostal muscles to evaluate the accuracy of upper thoracic pedicle screw placement (T3-T6). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(7):E194–E197. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181696094.
42.
SarwahiVHornJJKulkarniPM, et al. Minimally invasive surgery in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: is it better than the standard approach? a 2-year follow-up study. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(8):331–340.
43.
SarwahiVSugarmanEPWollowickALAmaralTDLoYThornhillB. Prevalence, distribution, and surgical relevance of abnormal pedicles in spines with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis vs. no deformity: a CT-based study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:e92.
44.
SchwartzDMAuerbachJDDormansJP, et al. Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(11):2440–2449. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01476.
45.
ShawKAMurphyJSDevitoDP.Accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: is triggered electromyographic pedicle screw stimulation necessary?J Spine Surg. 2018;4(2):187–194.
46.
SiGLiTWangYLiuXLiCYuM.Minimally invasive surgery versus standard posterior approach for Lenke Type 1-4 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a multicenter, retrospective study. Eur Spine J. 2021;30(3):706–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06546-w.
47.
SucatoDLDucheneC.The position of the aorta relative to the spine a comparison of patients with and without idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:1461–1469.
48.
ThanKDMummaneniPVBridgesKJ, et al. Complication rates associated with open versus percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation among patients undergoing minimally invasive interbody fusion for adult spinal deformity. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43(6):E7.
49.
ThirumalaPDBodilyLTintD, et al. Somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring during instrumented scoliosis corrective procedures: validity revisited. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1572–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.09.035.
50.
ThirumalaPDHuangJThiagarajanKChengHBalzerJCrammondDJ.Diagnostic accuracy of combined multimodality somatosensory evoked potential and transcranial motor evoked potential intraoperative monitoring in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(19):E1177–E1184. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001678.
51.
UghwanoghoEPatelNMBaldwinKDSampsonNRFlynnJM.Computed tomography-guided navigation of thoracic pedicle screws for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis results in more accurate placement and less screw removal. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(8):E473–E478.
52.
VardimanABWallaceDJCrawfordNRRigglemanJRAhrendtsenLALedonioCG.Pedicle screw accuracy in clinical utilization of minimally invasive navigated robot-assisted spine surgery. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(3):409–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00994-3.
WewelJTGodzikJUribeJS.The utilization of minimally invasive surgery techniques for the treatment of spinal deformity. J Spine Surg. 2019;5(suppl 1):S84–S90. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.04.22.
55.
WinterRB.Neurologic safety in spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22:1527–1533.
56.
YangJHChangDGSuhSW, et al. Safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive scoliosis surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a retrospective case series of 84 patients. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(4):761–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06172-1.
57.
ZhuWSunWXuL, et al. Minimally invasive scoliosis surgery assisted by O-arm navigation for Lenke Type 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison with standard open approach spinal instrumentation. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2017;19(4):472–478.
58.
ZindrickMRKnightGWSartoriMJCarnevaleTJPatwardhanAGLorenzMA.Pedicle morphology of the immature thoracolumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2726–2735.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
