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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objective  To compare the incidence and risk factors of superior facet joint violation (FJV) during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in robot‐assisted approach versus conventional technique.    Methods  A retrospective study, including 69 patients having cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw instrumentation for symptomatic degenerated diseases or trauma, was conducted between June 2015 to January 2019. All patients underwent CBT surgery performed by the same team of experienced surgeons. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: a conventional group (CG, 46 cases) and a robot group (RG, 23 cases). The surgical robotic system was used for screw instrumentation in the robot group and the traditional screw instrumentation with fluoroscopic guidance was used in the conventional group. Cortical screws followed a medio‐to‐lateral path in the transverse plane and a caudal‐to‐cephalad path in the sagittal plane. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were obtained to determine the degree and incidence of FJV. The violation status of facet joint was evaluated according to the modified classification: grade 0, no violation; grade 1, screw shaft, screw head or rod within 1 mm of or abutting the facet joint, but did not enter the articular facet joint; grade 2, screw shaft, screw head or rod clearly in the facet joint. The following factors that may contribute to the occurrence of FJV were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), proximal fusion level, fusion length, the side of screw, preoperative vertebral slip, superior facet angle, and degenerative scoliosis. The chi‐squared test and Student's t‐test were used for analysis of the variables for significance ( P  < 0.05).    Results  FJV occurred in 41.3% of patients in CG and 17.3% of patients in RG. A chi‐squared analysis revealed a significantly lower rate of FJV for RG compared with CG ( P  = 0.04). In the CG, 17 of the 109 cephalad screws were grade 1 (15.6%), and five were grade 2 (4.6%). In the RG, three of the 46 cephalad screws were grade 1 (6.5%), and three were grade 2 (6.5%). There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of FJV between the left and right screw with fluoroscopy‐assisted CBT screw instrumentation ( P  < 0.05). A significant correlation between scoliosis with the FJV was found in CG ( P  < 0.05) and in RG ( P  < 0.05). With regard to superior facet angle, a measurement ≥45° was a significant risk factor of FJV in CG ( P  < 0.05) and in RG ( P  < 0.05).    Conclusions  A robot‐assisted approach could reduce the incidence of FJV compared with the conventional approach in CBT technique.

orthopaedic surgery

Rate and Risk Factors of Superior Facet Joint Violation during Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Placement: A Comparison of Robot‐Assisted Approach with a Conventional Technique