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 volunteersQualifiers
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
Cohort
Prospective
Treatments tested in this trial
Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement
DeviceRobotic-assisted pedicle screw placement using commercially available robotic systems
Treatment groups
Trial outcomes
Primary outcomes
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.
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.
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).
Secondary outcomes
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
Length of stay
Inhospital stay (days) for the index surgery
Time to return to work
Time to return to work from the enrolment, which is the time for the index surgery
Health economic analysis
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