• Pratyush Shahi, Tejas Subramanian, Sumedha Singh, Evan Sheha, James Dowdell, Sheeraz A Qureshi, and Sravisht Iyer.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
• World Neurosurg. 2024 Jan 1; 181: e330e338e330-e338.

BackgroundThere is scant data on the role that robotics and navigation play in spine surgery training and practice of early attendings. This study aimed to assess the impact of navigation and robotics on spine surgery training and practice.MethodsA survey gathering information on utilization of navigation and robotics in training and practice was administered to trainees and early attendings.ResultsA total of 51 surveys were returned completed: 71% were attendings (average practice years: 2), 29% were trainees. During training, 22% were exposed to only fluoroscopy, 75% were exposed to navigation, 51% were exposed to robotics, and 40% were exposed to both navigation and robotics. In our sample, 87% and 61% of respondents who had exposure to navigation and robotics, respectively, felt that it had a positive impact on their training. In practice, 28% utilized only fluoroscopy, 69% utilized navigation, 30% utilized robotics, and 28% utilized both navigation and robotics. The top 3 reasons behind positive impact on training and practice were: 1) increased screw accuracy, 2) exposure to upcoming technology, and 3) less radiation exposure. The top 3 reasons behind negative impact were: 1) compromises training to independently place screws, 2) time and personnel requirements, and 3) concerns about availing it in practice. In sum, 76% of attendings felt that they will be utilizing more navigation and robotics in 5 years' time.ConclusionsNavigation and robotics have a perceivably positive impact on training and are increasingly being incorporated into practice. However, associated concerns demand spine surgeons to be thoughtful about how they integrate these technologies moving forward.Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.

15 keywords...

hide…