COMPARISON OF MAJOR SPINE NAVIGATION PLATFORMS BASED ON KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS: A META-ANALYSIS OF 16,040 SCREWS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Navigation technologies continue to develop and aid the instrumentation of spinal hardware. This meta-analysis attempted to evaluate all available published literature on computer-assisted spine navigation to compare the placement accuracy and surgical outcomes of prominent platforms such as Medtronic, Brainlab, and Stryker, using conventional techniques (free-hand or fluoroscopy) as a common control. Literature searches were performed using OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Included studies must have performed postoperative computed tomography to evaluate screw placement. Screw placement accuracy, neurologic complications, operative time, and blood loss were then analysed directly via network meta-analysis. Among the 28 included studies, 2959 patients underwent spinal instrumentation surgery, of which 1471 patients were in the navigation group and 1488 patients in the conventional group. Average age of patients in the navigation and conventional groups were 59.1 and 57.8 years old, respectively. 16,040 screws were included of which 7957 screws were placed using navigation technologies and 8083 screws were placed using conventional methods. Navigation manufactures included in the pooled analysis were Medtronic (15 studies, screws=9421), BrainLab (8 studies, screws=4778), Stryker (4 studies, screws=1684), and SeaSpine (7D Surgical) (1 study, screws=157). At all spinal levels, there was a significantly lower risk of major breach and improved screw accuracy in the navigation group compared to the conventional group (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.63, p<0.0001, I2 = 56%, random effect model). Across platforms, Stryker demonstrated the highest screw accuracy with an 84% reduction in risk of breach (OR 0.16 95% CI 0.06 to 0.41, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%, REM), followed by Medtronic and then Brainlab. Additionally, there were no significant differences in secondary surgical outcomes including rates of neurologic complications and blood loss between navigation platforms. However, BrainLab demonstrated significantly faster operative time compared to Medtronic by approximately 30 minutes (95% CI −63.27 to −2.47, p=0.03, I2=74%). Our results indicate that use of computer-assisted navigation platforms in spine surgery leads to an approximately 60% reduction in risk of major breach compared to conventional methods, with Stryker demonstrating the highest accuracy among platforms. Furthermore, we demonstrated that this increased accuracy is without negative change to surgical outcomes such as neurologic complications and blood loss. Although the studies analysed are highly heterogeneous, this study is the first to directly and quantitatively compare available navigation platforms. As such, our findings provide a foundation for further investigations and offer insight in guiding the acquisition of navigation platforms by surgeons and institutions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».