4.4 Article

Guideline for Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Assisted by Orthopaedic Surgical Robot

期刊

ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 153-159

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/os.12453

关键词

Accuracy; Pedicle screw; Robot-assisted surgery; Thoracolumbar spine

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFC0105800]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN) [U1713221]
  3. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [Z170001]
  4. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Program (CN) [Z171100000417019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pedicle screw placement procedure is the most commonly used technique for spinal fixation and can provide reliable three-column stabilization. Accurate screw placement is necessary in clinical practice. To avoid screw malposition, which may decrease the stiffness of the screw-rod construct or increase the likelihood of neural and vascular injuries, the surgeons must fully understand the regional anatomy. Deformities, such as scoliosis, kyphosis or congenital anomalies, may complicate the application of the pedicle screw placement technique and increase the chance of screw encroachments. Incidences of pedicle screw malposition vary in different districts and hospitals and with surgeons and techniques. Today, the minimally invasive spinal surgery is well developed. However, the narrow corridors and limited views for surgeons increase the difficulty of pedicle screw placement and the possibility of screw encroachment. Evidenced by previous studies, robotic surgery can provide accurate screw placement, especially in settings of spinal deformities, anatomical anomalies, and minimally invasive procedures. Based on the consensus of consultant specialists, the literature review and our local experiences, this guideline introduces the robotic system and describes the workflow of robot-assisted procedures and the precautions to take during procedures. This guideline aims to outline a standardized method for robotic surgery for thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据