ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of robot-guided percutaneous fixation and decompression via small incision in treatment of advanced thoracolumbar metastases. Methods A clinical data of 57 patients with advanced thoracolumbar metastases admitted between June 2017 and January 2021 and met the selection criteria was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 26 cases were treated with robot-guided percutaneous fixation and decompression via small incision (robot-guided group) and 31 cases with traditional open surgery (traditional group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, lesion segment, primary tumor site, and preoperative Tokuhashi score, Tomita score, Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Karnofsky score, and Frankel grading between groups (P>0.05). The operation time, hospital stays, hospital expenses, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, blood transfusion, complications, and survival time were compared. The pedicle screw placement accuracy was evaluated according to the Gertzbein-Robbins grading by CT within 4 days after operation. The pain, function, and quality of life were evaluated by VAS score, ODI, Karnofsky score, and Frankel grading. Results During operation, 257 and 316 screws were implanted in the robot-guided group and the traditional group, respectively; and there was no significant difference in pedicle screw placement accuracy between groups (P>0.05). Compared with the traditional group, the operation time, hospital stays, duration of ICU stay were significantly shorter, and intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly lesser in the robot-guided group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in hospital expenses, blood transfusion rate, and complications between groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 8-32 months (mean, 14 months). There was no significant difference in VAS scores between groups at 7 days after operation (P>0.05), but the robot-guided group was superior to the traditional group at 1 and 3 months after operation (P<0.05). The postoperative ODI change was significantly better in the robot-guided group than in the traditional group (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the postoperative Karnofsky score change and Frankel grading change when compared to the traditional group (P>0.05). Median overall survival time was 13 months [95%CI (10.858, 15.142) months] in the robot-guided group and 15 months [95%CI (13.349, 16.651) months] in the traditional group, with no significant difference between groups (χ2=0.561, P=0.454) . Conclusion Compared with traditional open surgery, the robot-guided percutaneous fixation and decompression via small incision can reduce operation time, hospital stays, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, and complications in treatment of advanced thoracolumbar metastases.
Objective To compare the accuracy and effectiveness of orthopaedic robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for limb osteoid osteoma. Methods A clinical data of 36 patients with limb osteoid osteomas admitted between June 2016 and June 2023 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 16 patients underwent orthopaedic robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (robot-assisted surgery group), and 20 patients underwent tumor resection after lotcated by C-arm X-ray fluoroscopy (open surgery group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the gender, age, lesion site, tumor nidus diameter, and preoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (P>0.05). The operation time, lesion resection time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, lesion resection accuracy, and postoperative analgesic use frequency were recorded and compared between the two groups. The VAS scores for pain severity were compared preoperatively and at 3 days and 3 months postoperatively.Results Compared with the open surgery group, the robot-assisted surgery group had a longer operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, less fluoroscopy frequency, less postoperative analgesic use frequency, and higher lesion resection accuracy (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in lesion resection time (P>0.05). All patients were followed up after surgery, with a follow-up period of 3-24 months (median, 12 months) in the two groups. No postoperative complication such as wound infection or fracture occurred in either group during follow-up. No tumor recurrence was observed during follow-up. The VAS scores significantly improved in both groups at 3 days and 3 months after surgery when compared with preoperative value (P<0.05). The VAS score at 3 days after surgery was significantly lower in robot-assisted surgery group than that in open surgery group (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in VAS scores at 3 months between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with open surgery, robot-assisted resection of limb osteoid osteomas has longer operation time, but the accuracy of lesion resection improve, intraoperative blood loss reduce, and early postoperative pain is lighter. It has the advantages of precision and minimally invasive surgery.