3D打印个体化导板与机器人辅助在成人退变性脊柱侧凸椎弓根螺钉置钉中的应用比较

Comparison of application of 3D-printed personalized guiding template and robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in adult degenerative scoliosis

目的:比较3D打印个体化导板与机器人辅助置钉在成人退变性脊柱侧凸(adult degenerative scoliosis,ADS)矫形手术中的应用效果。方法:对2020年1月~2022年12月在本科室住院接受矫形手术治疗的18例ADS患者进行回顾性分析,其中男性3例,女性15例,年龄46~73岁,平均63.2±8.2岁。共置入椎弓根螺钉236枚,根据辅助置钉方式分为两组,3D打印个体化导板组(3D打印组,11例,置入142枚椎弓根螺钉)和机器人辅助组(机器人组,7例,置入94枚椎弓根螺钉)。术后均进行至少6个月随访。术前测量并比较顶椎旋转角、侧凸Cobb角;术后1周采用Gertzbein-Robbins分类标准对所有椎弓根螺钉进行判断分类,对比两组患者螺钉置入的准确性和满意度;分析比较两组患者的手术时间和并发症发生率。结果:3D打印组年龄(63.6±9.0岁)、性别(男/女:2/9)、平均置钉数量(12.91±3.83枚)、侧凸Cobb角(40.36°±11.82°)、顶椎旋转角(30.27°±7.25°)分别与机器人组[年龄(62.6±7.3岁)、性别(男/女:1/6)、平均置钉数量(13.43±3.60枚)、侧凸Cobb角(38.14°±12.84°)、顶椎旋转角(29.86°±9.65°)]比较,均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。机器人组较3D打印组手术时间长(354.29±53.73min vs.282.27±73.87min),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。置钉结果统计,3D打印组共置入142枚椎弓根螺钉,其中A类128枚,B类10枚,C类4枚;机器人组共置入椎弓根螺钉94枚,其中A类86枚,B类5枚,C类3枚;两组患者均未出现D、E两类;3D打印组置钉准确率(90.14%)及满意度(97.18%),分别与机器人组置钉准确率(91.49%)及满意度(96.81%)比较均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。并发症发生率,3D打印组(36.36%)与机器人组(57.14%)比较无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论:两种辅助置钉方式均可以协助脊柱外科医师进行ADS患者的精准置钉,但3D打印个体化导板置钉用时更短。

Objectives:To compare the effects of 3D-printed personalized guiding template and robotassisted pedicle screw placements in orthopedic surgery for adult degenerative scoliosis(ADS).Methods:Retrospective analysis was conducted on 18 ADS patients hospitalized and treated with corrective surgery in the department between January 2020 and December 2022.There were 3 males and 15 females,aged 46-73(63.2±8.2)years old.A total of 236 pedicle screws were placed,and the patients were divided into two groups according to the auxiliary screw placement methods:the 3D-printed personalized guiding template group(3D-printed group,11 cases,142 pedicle screws were placed)and robot-assisted screw placement group(Robot group,7 cases,94 pedicle screws were placed).The patients were followed up for 6 months and more.The vertex rotation angle and scoliosis Cobb angle were measured and compared between groups before operation.All pedicle screws were classified by Gertzbein-Robbins classification standard at 1 week after operation,and the accuracy and satisfaction of screw placement in the two groups were compared;And the operative time and incidence of complications were also analyzed and compared between the two groups.Results:The 3D-printed group was not statistically different from the robot group in terms of age(63.6±9.0 years vs.62.6±7.3 years),gender ratio(male/female:2/9 vs.1/6),number of screws placed(12.91±3.83 vs.13.43±3.60),Cobb angle(40.36°±11.82°vs.38.14°±12.84°),and vertex rotation angle(30.27°±7.25°vs.29.86°±9.65°),respectively(P>0.05).The robot group was longer in operative time than that of 3D-printed group(354.29±53.73min vs.282.27±73.87min,P<0.05).Of the total 142 pedicle screws placed in the 3D-printed group,128 screws were of class A,10 were of class B,and 4 were of class C;Of the total 94 pedicle screws placed in the robot group,86 screws were of class A,5 were of class B,and 3 were of class C;No class D or E screws in the two groups.The accuracy rate of screw placement(90.14%)and satisfaction rate(97.18%)of the 3D-printed group were not statistically different from the accuracy rate(91.49%)and satisfaction rate(96.81%)of the robot group,respectively(P>0.05).The incidence of complications in the 3D-printed group(36.36%)was not significantly different from that in the robot group(57.14%,P>0.05).Conclusions:Both auxiliary screw placement methods can assist spinal surgeons to accurately place screws in ADS patients,but 3D-printed personalized guiding template needs less time in screw placement.