000			04512nam a22007577a 4500
008			240807s20242024 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a1863-2483
024			_a10.1007/s11701-024-02014-5 [pii]
024			_aPMC11228004 [pmc]
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a38972955
245			_aThe contribution of E3D imaging integrated with robotic navigation: analysis of the first 80 consecutive posterior spinal fusion cases.
251			_aJournal of Robotic Surgery. 18(1):282, 2024 Jul 08.
252			_aJ. robot. surg.. 18(1):282, 2024 Jul 08.
253			_aJournal of robotic surgery
260			_c2024
260			_fFY2025
260			_p2024 Jul 08
265			_sepublish
265			_tMEDLINE
266			_d2024-08-07
266			_z2024/07/07 23:08
520			_aEighty consecutive complex spinal robotic cases utilizing intraoperative 3D CT imaging (E3D, Group 2) were compared to 80 age-matched controls using the Excelsius robot alone with C-arm Fluoroscopic registration (Robot Only, Group 1). The demographics between the two groups were similar-severity of deformity, ASA Score for general anesthesia, patient age, gender, number of spinal levels instrumented, number of patients with prior spinal surgery, and amount of neurologic compression. The intraoperative CT scanning added several objective factors improving patient safety. There were significantly fewer complications in the E3D group with only 3 of 80 (4%) patients requiring a return to the operating room compared to 11 of 80 (14%) patients in the Robot Only Group requiring repeat surgery for implant related problems (Chi squared analysis = 5.00, p = 0.025). There was a significant reduction the amount of fluoroscopy time in the E3D Group (36 s, range 4-102 s) compared to Robot only group (51 s, range 15-160 s) (p = 0.0001). There was also shorter mean operative time in the E3D group (257 +/- 59.5 min) compared to the robot only group (306 +/- 73.8 min) due to much faster registration time (45 s). A longer registration time was required in the Robot only group to register each vertebral level with AP and Lateral fluoroscopy shots. The estimated blood loss was also significantly lower in Group 2 (mean 345 +/- 225 ml) vs Group 1 (474 +/- 397 ml) (p = 0.012). The mean hospital length of stay was also significantly shorter for Group 2 (3.77 +/- 1.86 days) compared to Group 1 (5.16 +/- 3.40) (p = 0.022). There was no significant difference in the number of interbody implants nor corrective osteotomies in both groups-Robot only 52 cases vs. 42 cases in E3D group.Level of evidence: IV, Retrospective review. Copyright © 2024. The Author(s).
546			_aEnglish
650			_a*Imaging, Three-Dimensional
650			_a*Operative Time
650			_a*Robotic Surgical Procedures
650			_a*Spinal Fusion
650			_a*Tomography, X-Ray Computed
650			_aAdult
650			_aAged
650			_aAged, 80 and over
650			_aFemale
650			_aFluoroscopy/mt [Methods]
650			_aHumans
650			_aImaging, Three-Dimensional/mt [Methods]
650			_aMale
650			_aMiddle Aged
650			_aPostoperative Complications/et [Etiology]
650			_aRetrospective Studies
650			_aRobotic Surgical Procedures/mt [Methods]
650			_aSpinal Fusion/is [Instrumentation]
650			_aSpinal Fusion/mt [Methods]
650			_aSurgery, Computer-Assisted/mt [Methods]
650			_aTomography, X-Ray Computed/mt [Methods]
650			_aYoung Adult
650			_zAutomated
651			_aMedStar Union Memorial Hospital
656			_aMedStar Georgetown University Hospital/MedStar Washington Hospital Center
656			_aNeurosurgery Residency
656			_aOrthopaedic Surgery
656			_aSpine Center
657			_aJournal Article
700			_aAsdourian, Paul _bMUMH
700			_aBrooks, Daina M _bMUMH
700			_aCunningham, Bryan W _bMUMH
700			_aLemma, Mesfin _bMUMH
700			_aMcAfee, Paul C _bMUMH
700			_aMoatz, Bradley _bMUMH
700			_aSoda, Mosope _bMUMH
700			_aStewart, Jeffrey _bMGUH _cNeurosurgery Residency _dMD
790			_aStewart JJ, Asdourian P, Moatz B, Soda M, Lemma M, Cunningham BW, Brooks DM, McAfee PC
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02014-5 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02014-5
858			_yMcAfee, Paul C _uhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3033-5464 _zhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3033-5464
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c14553 _d14553