Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
No-tap (2-step) robotic-assisted cortical bone trajectory (RA-CBT) screw insertion is safe and efficient: comparative analysis of 179 patients and 924 RA-CBT screws
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.
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?
No-tap (2-step) robotic-assisted cortical bone trajectory (RA-CBT) screw insertion is safe and efficient: comparative analysis of 179 patients and 924 RA-CBT screws
Do you wish to request the book?
No-tap (2-step) robotic-assisted cortical bone trajectory (RA-CBT) screw insertion is safe and efficient: comparative analysis of 179 patients and 924 RA-CBT screws
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.
Journal Article
No-tap (2-step) robotic-assisted cortical bone trajectory (RA-CBT) screw insertion is safe and efficient: comparative analysis of 179 patients and 924 RA-CBT screws
2022
Overview
Background: Traditionally, the workflow for cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws has included tapping either line-to-line or under tapping by 1 mm. To our knowledge, no reports describe a non-tapping, 2-step workflow for CBT screw placement. We sought to compare the safety profile and time savings, if any, in this no-tap (2-step) versus tap (3-step) workflow. Methods: Patients undergoing robotic-assisted (RA) 1- to 3-level posterior spine fusion with CBT screws for degenerative conditions were identified. Patients were separated into either no-tap or tap workflow. Numbers of total screws, screwr-elated complications, screws malpositioned, aborted or converted, other complications, estimated blood loss (EBL), operating room (OR) time, robotic time and return to OR were analyzed. Results: We identified 179 RA-CBT patients with 91 patients undergoing 2-step (458 screws) and 88 undergoing 3-step (466 screws) workflow. There was no difference in age, sex, body mass index, revisions status, smoking, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, approach (posterior only v. anterior-posterior), number of levels fused or diagnosis between the cohorts. Total robotic time was decreased from 30.3 (tap) to 26.7 (no tap) minutes (p = 0.05), while OR time (181.4 [tap] v. 169.9 [no tap] min) was decreased as well but not significantly (p = 0.24). No patient in either cohort was returned to OR for malpositioned screws. There was no difference in malpositioned screws identified intraoperatively (6 v. 10, p = 0.43), screws converted to freehand (3 v. 3, p = 0.69) or screws abandoned (2 v. 3, p = 1.00). No pedicle fracture or fixation failure was identified in the no-tap cohort with 1 in the tapping cohort (p = 1.00). Conclusion: The no-tap (2-step) screw insertion workflow for RA-CBT reduced robotic time without increased complications. In both cohorts, no patients were returned to the OR for malpositioned screws and no pedicle fractures or fixation-related complications were identified in the no-tap (2-step) workflow. The no-tap workflow is safe and improves efficiency in RA-CBT screw insertion.
Publisher
CMA Impact, Inc
Subject
