Robotic-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement in Spine Surgery

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
AgeNot listed
SponsorUppsala University

About this trial

This prospective multicenter observational cohort study evaluates robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement compared with non-robotic-assisted techniques in spinal surgery. Primary objectives include screw placement accuracy, operative learning curve, and reoperation rate within 2 years.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Treatment with pedicle screws in the cervical, thoracic, lumbar spine and/or sacrum.

All ages and spinal diagnoses

Disqualifiers

Treatment without pedicle screws

Trial population

Swedish residents undergoing spine surgery in Sweden

Trial design

Design model

Cohort

Time perspective

Prospective

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement

    Device

    Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement using commercially available robotic systems

Treatment groups

7,200 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement1 intervention
Group B: Conventional pedicle screw placement0 interventions

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Proportion of patients in which at least one pedicle screw is not accurately placed (substudy 1)

Accurate screw placement is defined as a pedicle screw that remains entirely within the cortical boundary of the pedicle, or with up to 2 mm breach of the pedicle wall (corresponds to Gertzbein-Robbins Grade A and B), assessed on a computed tomography. To evaluate screw placement accuracy, we will define a binary per-patient outcome: whether at least one screw is not accurately placed. The planned sample size for this substudy is 75 patients in the robotic-assisted surgery group, and 426 patients in the non-robotic-assisted group, for a total of 501 patients. For this outcome, previously treated cases may be included as specified in the approved protocol.

Time frame
Periprocedural
2

Learning curve (substudy 2)

To evaluate the learning curve associated with robotic-assisted surgery, we will model operative time as a function of case number. Operative time is expected to decrease with experience, then plateau. We will use mixed-effects piece-wise linear regression with the surgeon as a random effect to estimate the case number at which operative time levels off. The sample size in this substudy is 100 robotic-assisted spine surgeries in each of the 3 centers currently using robotic-assisted spine surgery (Umeå, Örebro, Uppsala), in total 300 surgeries. For this outcome, previously treated cases may be included as specified in the approved protocol.

Time frame
Periprocedural
3

Reoperation rate at 2 years (substudy 3)

The primary outcome is the occurrence of reoperations of any cause within 2 years from the index surgery. The expected reoperation rate in the non-robotic group is likely to be higher than 3-5% over a 2-year period, and may in the robotic-assisted group be 1% or less. A difference of 2 percentage points or greater is considered clinically meaningful. Power analyses (80% power, alpha 0.05) have been made in two scenarios, with reoperation rates of 3% vs 1%, or 5% vs 3%. We estimate a ratio of 1:6 for robotic-assisted surgery vs navigation-assisted or free hand surgeries. Comparing 3% and 1% reoperation rates, 420 robotic-assisted surgery patients and 2,520 non-robotic surgery patients are needed (yielding a total sample size of 2,940 patients). In case reoperation rates are 5% and 3%, 866 robotic-assisted surgery patients and 5,196 non-robotic surgery patients are needed (yielding a total sample size of 6,062 patients).

Time frame
From enrolment up until 2 years after surgery

Secondary outcomes

1

Screw placement precision

We will evaluate screw placement precision as the deviation between preoperative planning and actual placement in robotic-assisted surgery cases. For each screw, linear deviation (at the tip and tail) perpendicular from the planned position, to the actual position, and angular deviation between the planned position and the actual position will be measured. This comparison will be made on an overlay of the preoperative planning made on a preoperative computed tomography, and compared with the computed tomography performed intra- or postoperative for assessment of pedicle screw position

Time frame
Periprocedural
2

Length of stay

Inhospital stay (days) for the index surgery

Time frame
Periprocedural
3

Time to return to work

Time to return to work from the enrolment, which is the time for the index surgery

Time frame
From surgery until 2 years after surgery
4

Health economic analysis

Time frame
From enrollment until the two-year follow-up

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

Uppsala University

Lead sponsor

Uppsala University Hospital

Collaborator

Ôrebro University Hospital

Collaborator

Umeå University

Collaborator

University Hospital, Umeå

Collaborator

Karolinska Institutet

Collaborator

Karolinska University Hospital

Collaborator

Stockholm South General Hospital

Collaborator

Sahlgrenska University Hospital

Collaborator

University of Linköping

Collaborator

University Hospital, Linkoeping

Collaborator

Lund University

Collaborator

Skane University Hospital

Collaborator

Länssjukhuset Ryhov

Collaborator

Länssjukhuset Kalmar

Collaborator

Örebro University, Sweden

Collaborator

Göteborg University

Collaborator