727 Robotic Assisted Versus Fluoroscopic Guided Approach in Pedicle Screw Insertion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim The robotic assisted surgery has become prevalent in most of the surgical subspecialty. The adaption of such technique in spine surgery has resulted in minimising several issues encountered with fluoroscopic guided approach. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of robotic assisted approach and fluoroscopic guided approach in pedicle screw insertion. Method PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL database were systematically searched from its inception until November 2020. All the studies comparing robotic assisted surgery and fluoroscopic guided approach in pedicle screw insertion were included for quantitative and qualitative analysis. Results Twenty-eight studies enrolling 2105 patients (robotic group: 1027, fluoroscopic: 1078) and total screws of 8668 screws (robotic group: 4217, fluoroscopic group: 4451) were eligible for inclusion, these studies consisted of 19 observational studies, 7 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 cadaveric study. Robotic assisted approach was associated with significantly higher accuracy (Grade A+B) (OR = 2.34; P < 0.0001) and distance between pedicle and screw (MD: 1.69; P = 0.001), lower incident of facet joint violation (OR = 0.22; P < 0.00001), screw revision (OR = 0.38; P = 0.009), intraoperative blood loss (MD: -116.95; P = 0.0006), shorter pedicle screw placement time (MD: -4.66; P < 0.00001), radiation exposure time (MD:-5.27; P = 0.0001), radiation dose (MD:-22.30; P = 0.0002) and postoperative hospital stay (MD: -0.79; P = 0.02) compared to fluoroscopic guided approach. There was no significant difference in operative time and wound infection. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, robotic assisted approach is more effective in achieving better clinical outcomes compared to fluoroscopic guided technique in pedicle screw insertion. However, future adequately powered RCTs are warranted to generate standardised outcomes.