机器人与徒手侧方椎体间融合椎弓钉固定的比较△（开放获取）

（Open Access) Robotic versus freehand lateral lumbar interbody fusion with posterior pedicle screw fixation

摘要:

[目的] 探讨机器人与徒手侧方腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病（lumbar degenerative diseases, LDD） 的临床疗效。[方法] 回顾性分析2019 年1 月—2022 年1 月四川省人民医院骨科治疗的LDD 患者的临床资料，根据医患沟通结果，22例采用机器人辅助单一体位侧位腰椎椎间融合术（机器人组），21 例应用传统双体位腰椎椎间融合术（徒手组）。比较两组围手术期、随访期及影像结果。[结果] 两组患者均顺利完成手术，机器人组的手术时间[(136.0±18.6) min vs (149.4±22.0) min, P=0.036]、术中出血量[(124.9±16.5) ml vs (138.2±20.3) ml, P=0.023]、术中透视次数[(11.6±3.7) 次vs (40.0±8.1) 次, P＜0.001] 显著少于徒手组。随访时间平均（11.3±3.8） 个月，两组完全负重活动时间的差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。随时间推移，两组患者腰痛以及腿痛VAS 评分、ODI 评分显著降低（P＜0.05）。相应时间点，两组上述指标的差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。影像方面，两组椎弓根螺钉置钉准确性的差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。与术前相比，两组椎管面积、侧隐窝矢状径、腰椎前凸角均显著增加（P＜0.05），相应时间点，两组上述影像指标的差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。[结论] 机器人辅助与徒手侧位腰椎椎间融合术都是治疗LDD 的有效方法。但是机器人组可减少手术时间、降低术中出血量以及术中透视次数，具有良好的临床应用价值。

关键词:机器人手术;侧位腰椎椎间融合术;腰椎退行性疾病;临床疗效

Abstract:

[Objective] To investigate the clinical efficacy of robotic versus freehand lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with poste-rior pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). [Methods] A retrospective study was conducted on 43patients who underwent LLID for LDDs in our hospital from January 2019 to January 2022. According to preoperative doctor-patient com-munication, 22 patients underwent robot-assisted single lateral position LLIF and pedicle screw fixation (the robot group), while other 21patients underwent traditional LLIF with changing position and freehand technique (the freehand group). The documents regarding to peri-operative period, follow-up and images were compared between the two groups. [Results] All patients in both groups had operation per-formed successfully. The robot group proved significantly superior to the freehand group in terms of operation time [(136.0±18.6) min vs(149.4±22.0) min, P=0.036], intraoperative blood loss [(124.9±16.5) ml vs (138.2±20.3) ml, P=0.023], intraoperative fluoroscopy times[(11.6±3.7) times vs (40.0±8.1) times, P＜0.001]. The mean follow-up time was of (11.3±3.8) months, and there was no significant differencein time to regain full weight-bearing activity between the two groups (P＞0.05). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, as well asODI score significantly decreased over time in both groups (P＜0.05), which were not statistically significant between the two groups at anycorresponding time points (P＞0.05). As for imaging, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of pedicle screw placement betweenthe two groups (P＞0.05). Compared with those preoperatively results, the spinal canal area, sagittal diameter of lateral recess and lumbar lor-dosis angle significantly improved in both groups postoperatively (P＜0.05), whereas which were not statistically significant between the twogroups at any time points accordingly (P＞0.05). [Conclusion] Both robot-assisted and freehand lateral lumbar interbody fusion are effective

Key words:机器人手术;侧位腰椎椎间融合术;腰椎退行性疾病;临床疗效