English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to compare robotic assisted and freehand facet joint puncture on a phantom model in regards to time requirements and puncture accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty facet joints were punctured, 20 using a robotic guidance system and 20 using a freehand procedure. Side and height of the facet joints were randomized and identical for both groups. Procedural accuracy, defined as axial and sagittal deviation, as well as the number of corrections were assessed. Procedure times for each step were documented and time requirements for pre-positioning, reconstruction, planning, and total intervention were calculated. RESULTS Total procedure time for robotic guidance was 259±111 seconds versus 119±77 seconds for freehand procedure (p=1.0). Procedural accuracy for robotic guidance was significantly higher with 0 corrections versus 1.3 corrections for freehand procedure (p=0.02). Needle deviation in the robotics arm was 0.35±1.1 mm in the axial and 2.15±1.2 mm in the sagittal reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS Robotic assisted puncture of the facet joint allowed accurate positioning of the needle with a lower number of needle readjustments. Higher procedural accuracy was marginally offset by a slightly longer intervention time.

Evaluation of a Robotic Assistance-System For Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided (CT-Guided) Facet Joint Injection: A Phantom Study