Abstract
Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Objective: Several studies have shown that the accuracy of pedicle screw placement significantly improves with use of computer-assisted surgery (CAS). Yet few studies have compared the incidence of postoperative complications between CAS and conventional techniques. The objective of this study is to determine the difference in postoperative complication rates between CAS and conventional techniques in spine surgery.
Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was used to identify patients who underwent posterior lumbar fusion from 2011 to 2013. Multivariate analysis was conducted to demonstrate the difference in postoperative complication rates between CAS and conventional techniques in spine surgery.
Results: Out of 15 222 patients, 14 382 (95.1%) were operated with conventional techniques and 740 (4.90%) were operated with CAS. Multivariate analysis showed that patients in the CAS group had fewer odds to experience adverse events post-operatively (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57, P < .001). Minor adverse events occurred in 2905 (20.2%) patients in the conventional group and in 98 (13.2%) patients in the CAS group (OR = 0.57, P < .001). Blood transfusion was present in 2488 (17.3%) of the patients in the conventional group compared to 81 (11.0%) of the patients in the CAS group (OR = 0.56, P < .001). The mean operative time in the conventional group was 205.2 + 106.1 minutes, and it was 227.0 + 111.9 minutes in the CAS group. This difference was statistically significant (r = 20.14, P < .001).
Conclusion: This article examined the complications in lumbar spinal surgery with or without the use of CAS. These results suggest that CAS may provide a safer technique for implant placement in lumbar fusion surgeries.