Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of Superior‐Level Facet Joint Violations Between Robot‐Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement and Conventional Open Fluoroscopic‐Guided Pedicle Screw Placement
by
Zhang, Qi
, Liu, Bo
, Yuan, Qiang
, Han, Xiao‐Guang
, Liu, Ya‐Jun
, Tian, Wei
, Xu, Yun‐Feng
, He, Da
, Le, Xiao‐Feng
, Sun, Yu‐Qin
, Lang, Zhao
in
Clinical
/ Cohort study
/ Freehand technique
/ Proximal facet joint violation
/ Robotic‐assisted pedicle screw fixation
2019
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of Superior‐Level Facet Joint Violations Between Robot‐Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement and Conventional Open Fluoroscopic‐Guided Pedicle Screw Placement
by
Zhang, Qi
, Liu, Bo
, Yuan, Qiang
, Han, Xiao‐Guang
, Liu, Ya‐Jun
, Tian, Wei
, Xu, Yun‐Feng
, He, Da
, Le, Xiao‐Feng
, Sun, Yu‐Qin
, Lang, Zhao
in
Clinical
/ Cohort study
/ Freehand technique
/ Proximal facet joint violation
/ Robotic‐assisted pedicle screw fixation
2019
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of Superior‐Level Facet Joint Violations Between Robot‐Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement and Conventional Open Fluoroscopic‐Guided Pedicle Screw Placement
by
Zhang, Qi
, Liu, Bo
, Yuan, Qiang
, Han, Xiao‐Guang
, Liu, Ya‐Jun
, Tian, Wei
, Xu, Yun‐Feng
, He, Da
, Le, Xiao‐Feng
, Sun, Yu‐Qin
, Lang, Zhao
in
Clinical
/ Cohort study
/ Freehand technique
/ Proximal facet joint violation
/ Robotic‐assisted pedicle screw fixation
2019
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Comparison of Superior‐Level Facet Joint Violations Between Robot‐Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement and Conventional Open Fluoroscopic‐Guided Pedicle Screw Placement
Journal Article
Comparison of Superior‐Level Facet Joint Violations Between Robot‐Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement and Conventional Open Fluoroscopic‐Guided Pedicle Screw Placement
2019
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Objective To compare the superior‐level facet joint violations (FJV) between robot‐assisted (RA) percutaneous pedicle screw placement and conventional open fluoroscopic‐guided (FG) pedicle screw placement in a prospective cohort study. Methods This was a prospective cohort study without randomization. One‐hundred patients scheduled to undergo RA (n = 50) or FG (n = 50) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were included from February 2016 to May 2018. The grade of FJV, the distance between pedicle screws and the corresponding proximal facet joint, and intra‐pedicle accuracy of the top screw were evaluated based on postoperative CT scan. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and radiation exposure were recorded and compared. Perioperative outcomes include surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative length of stay, conversion, and revision surgeries. Results Of the 100 screws in the RA group, 4 violated the proximal facet joint, while 26 of 100 in the FG group had FJV (P = 0.000). In the RA group, 3 and 1 screws were classified as grade 1 and 2, respectively. Of the 26 FJV screws in the FG group, 17 screws were scored as grade 1, 6 screws were grade 2, and 3 screws were grade 3. Significantly more severe FJV were noted in the FG group than in the RA group (P = 0.000). There was a statistically significant difference between RA and FG for overall violation grade (0.05 vs 0.38, P = 0.000). The average distance of pedicle screws from facet joints in the RA group (4.16 ± 2.60 mm) was larger than that in the FG group (1.92 ± 1.55 mm; P = 0.000). For intra‐pedicle accuracy, the rate of perfect screw position was greater in the RA group than in the FG group (85% vs 71%; P = 0.017). No statistically significant difference was found between the clinically acceptable screws between groups (P = 0.279). The radiation dose was higher in the FG group (30.3 ± 11.3 vs 65.3 ± 28.3 μSv; P = 0.000). The operative time in the RA group was significantly longer (184.7 ± 54.3 vs 117.8 ± 36.9 min; P = 0.000). Conclusions Compared to the open FG technique, minimally invasive RA spine surgery was associated with fewer proximal facet joint violations, larger facet to screw distance, and higher intra‐pedicle accuracy.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd,Wiley
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.