• Nathan J Lee, Ian A Buchanan, Scott L Zuckermann, Venkat Boddapati, Justin Mathew, Matthew Geiselmann, Paul J Park, Eric Leung, Avery L Buchholz, Asham Khan, Jeffrey Mullin, John Pollina, Ehsan Jazini, Colin Haines, Thomas C Schuler, Christopher R Good, Joseph M Lombardi, and Ronald A Lehman.
• Department of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY.
• Spine. 2022 Jan 1; 47 (1): 424842-48.

Study DesignMulticenter cohort.ObjectiveTo compare the robot time/screw, radiation exposure, robot abandonment, screw accuracy, and 90-day outcomes between robot-assisted percutaneous and robot-assisted open approach for short lumbar fusion (1- and 2-level).Summary Of Background DataThere is conflicting literature on the superiority of robot-assisted minimally invasive spine surgery to open techniques. A large, multicenter study is needed to further elucidate the outcomes and complications between these two approaches.MethodsWe included adult patients (≥18 yrs old) who underwent robot-assisted short lumbar fusion surgery from 2015 to 2019 at four independent institutions. A propensity score matching algorithm was employed to control for the potential selection bias between percutaneous and open surgery. The minimum follow-up was 90 days after the index surgery.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, 310 patients remained. The mean (standard deviation) Charlson comorbidity index was 1.6 (1.5) and 53% of patients were female. The most common diagnoses included high-grade spondylolisthesis (grade >2) (48%), degenerative disc disease (22%), and spinal stenosis (25%), and the mean number of instrumented levels was 1.5(0.5). The operative time was longer in the open (198 min) versus the percutaneous group (167 min, P value = 0.007). However, the robot time/screw was similar between cohorts (P value > 0.05). The fluoroscopy time/ screw for percutaneous (14.4 s) was longer than the open group (10.1 s, P value = 0.021). The rates for screw exchange and robot abandonment were similar between groups (P value > 0.05). The estimated blood loss (open: 146 mL vs. percutaneous: 61.3 mL, P value < 0.001) and transfusion rate (open: 3.9% vs. percutaneous: 0%, P value = 0.013) were greater for the open group. The 90-day complication rate and mean length of stay were not different between cohorts (P value > 0.05).ConclusionPercutaneous robot-assisted spine surgery may increase radiation exposure, but can achieve a shorter operative time and lower risk for intraoperative blood loss for short-lumbar fusion. Percutaneous approaches do not appear to have an advantage for other short-term postoperative outcomes. Future multicenter studies on longer fusion surgeries and the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes are needed.Level of Evidence: 3.Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

13 keywords...

hide…