Clinical Evidence of Robot Guided vs. Navigated vs. Free Hand Lumbar Spinal Fusion

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

WITHDRAWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-01-01

Study Completion Date

2019-05-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Computer-based navigation systems were first introduced to spine surgery in 1995 and while they have been long established as standards in certain cranial procedures, they have not been similarly adopted in spine surgery. Designed to overcome some of the limitations of navigation-based technologies, robot-guided surgical systems have become commercially available to surgeons worldwide.These systems are rapidly challenging the gold standards.

The aim is to conduct a prospective randomized controlled trial. The randomized variable will be the screw placement technique used. One arm will be treated with lumbar fusion using robotic guidance (RG), one arm will receive the same procedure but with a free hand technique (FH) and the third arm will use navigation (NV) (CT or Fluoroscopy-assisted). Intraoperative screw revisions and revision surgery for screw malposition as well as clinical patient-reported outcomes to identify any such differences between these methods of screw insertion will be assessed.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

ADDRESS - Adult Deformity Robotic vs. Freehand Surgery to Correct Spinal Deformity

NCT02058238

Scoliosis Kyphosis Kyphoscoliosis +2 more

WITHDRAWN

Clinical Trial of Minimally Invasive Robotic Spine Surgery

NCT02121249

Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

COMPLETED NA

Prospective, Observational Registry of Renaissance-guided Spine Surgeries

NCT02212899

Degenerative Spine Disease Spinal Deformity

TERMINATED

MIS ReFRESH: Robotic vs. Freehand Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgeries

NCT02057744

Degenerative Spine Disease Spondylolisthesis Spondylosis

UNKNOWN

Robotic-assisted Pedicule Screw Placement

NCT01944553

Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease

COMPLETED NA

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

A decade ago, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was considered a promising development in spine surgery, yet the value of the pioneering technologies was questionable. With the growing number of experienced MIS surgeons, the influx of evidence in favour of MIS is rapidly increasing. This makes a compelling argument towards MIS offering distinct clinical benefits over open approaches in terms of blood loss, length of stay, rehabilitation, cost-effectiveness and perioperative patient comfort. Due to the limited or inexistent line-of-sight in MIS procedures, surgeons need to rely on imaging, navigation, and guidance technologies to operate in a safe and efficient manner. Therefore, a plethora of new and ever improving navigational systems have been developed. These systems allow a consistent level of safety and accuracy, on par with results achieved by very experienced free hand surgeons, with a reasonably short learning curve.

Computer-based navigation systems were first introduced to spine surgery in 1995 and while they have been long established as standards in certain cranial procedures, they have not been similarly adopted in spine surgery. Designed to overcome some of the limitations of navigation-based technologies, robot-guided surgery has become commercially available to surgeons worldwide, like SpineAssist® (Mazor Robotics Ltd. Caesarea, Israel) and the recently launched ROSA™ Spine (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA). These systems are rapidly challenging the gold standards.

SpineAssist®, and its upgraded version, the Renaissance®, provides a stable drilling platform and restricts the surgeon's natural full range of motion to 2 degrees of freedom (up/down motion and yaw in the cannula). The system's guidance unit moves into the trajectory based on exact preoperative planning of pedicle screws, while accounting for changes in intervertebral relationships such as due to distraction, cage insertion or changes between the supine patient position in the preoperative CT and the prone patient on the operating table. Published evidence on robot-guided screw placement has demonstrated high levels of accuracy with most reports ranging around 98% of screws placed within the pedicle or with a cortical encroachment of less than 2 mm.

Although the reliability and accuracy of robot-guided spine surgery have been established, the actual benefits for the patient in terms of clinical outcomes and revision surgeries remain unknown.

The investigators recently conducted a cohort study that showed some evidence that robotic guidance lowers the rate of intraoperative screw revisions and implant related reoperations compared to free hand procedures, while achieving comparable clinical outcomes. Now, these factors, among others, have to be assessed on a higher level of evidence. This would be, to date, the first randomized controlled trial comparing clinical patient reported outcomes of robotic guided (RG) pedicle screw placement vs. navigated (NV) vs. free hand (FH) pedicle screw placement.

The investigator's aim is to conduct a prospective randomized controlled trial. The randomized variable will be the screw placement technique used. One arm will be treated with lumbar fusion using robotic guidance (RG), one arm will receive the same procedure but with a free hand technique (FH) and the third arm will use navigation (NV) (CT or Fluoroscopy-assisted).

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Spondylolisthesis Intervertebral Disc Degeneration

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Robot-guided

Robotic guidance (SpineAssist®or Renaissance® (Mazor Robotics Ltd. Caesarea, Israel) will be used for navigation and insertion of pedicle screws.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Pedicle Screw Placement

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

As a part of the lumbar spinal fusion procedure, posterior pedicle screws will be placed.

SpineAssist®/Renaissance® (Mazor Robotics Ltd. Caesarea, Israel)

Intervention Type DEVICE

This robot will be used to guide pedicle screws into their trajectories.

Navigated

A computer-assisted method of navigation (CT- or 3D-Fluoroscopy-based) will be used for navigation and insertion of pedicle screws.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Pedicle Screw Placement

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

As a part of the lumbar spinal fusion procedure, posterior pedicle screws will be placed.

3D C-Arm (Ziehm Imaging, Nuremberg, Germany)

Intervention Type DEVICE

This 3D Fluoroscope will be used to navigate pedicle screws into their trajectories.

Freehand

Pedicle screws will be inserted using the freehand technique under fluoroscopic control.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Pedicle Screw Placement

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

As a part of the lumbar spinal fusion procedure, posterior pedicle screws will be placed.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Pedicle Screw Placement

As a part of the lumbar spinal fusion procedure, posterior pedicle screws will be placed.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

SpineAssist®/Renaissance® (Mazor Robotics Ltd. Caesarea, Israel)

This robot will be used to guide pedicle screws into their trajectories.

Intervention Type DEVICE

3D C-Arm (Ziehm Imaging, Nuremberg, Germany)

This 3D Fluoroscope will be used to navigate pedicle screws into their trajectories.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Informed Consent
* Lumbar single level discopathy or Spondylolisthesis of Meyerding Grade 1 or 2
* Body Mass Index \>19 and \<33
* American Society of Anesthesiologists Scale 1 or 2