Short-term effectiveness of orthopedic robot-assisted resection for osteoid osteoma_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

LI Zhuoyu ^1,2 ,  LIU Weifeng ² , DENG Zhiping ² , JIN Tao ² , SUN Yang ² , YANG Yongkun ² , LI Yuan ² , YANG Fajun ² , YU Feng ² , HAO Lin ² , ZHANG Qing ² , NIU Xiaohui ²

1. Peking University Fourth School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing, 100035, P. R. China;
2. Department of Orthopaedic Oncology Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, 100035, P. R. China;

Corresponding?author：

LIU Weifeng, Email: liuweifengjst@126.com

Keywords：

Osteoid osteoma; orthopedic robot; open surgery; case-control study

DOI：

10.7507/1002-1892.202308032

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To investigate short-term effectiveness and clinical application advantages of orthopedic robot-assisted resection for osteoid osteoma compared with traditional open surgery. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data of 48 osteoid osteoma patients who met the selection criteria between July 2022 and April 2023. Among them, 23 patients underwent orthopedic robot-assisted resection (robot-assisted surgery group), and 25 patients received traditional open surgery (traditional surgery group). There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in gender, age, disease duration, lesion location and size, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and musculoskeletal tumor society (MSTS) score between the two groups. The surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative lesion localization time, initial localization success rate, infection, and recurrence were recorded and compared. VAS scores before surgery and at 24 hours, 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after surgery and MSTS score before surgery and at 3 months after surgery were assessed. Results All patients completed the surgery successfully, with no significant difference in surgical time between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared to the traditional surgery group, the robot-assisted surgery group had less intraoperative blood loss, shorter lesion localization time, and shorter hospitalization time, with significant differences (P<0.05). The initial localization success rate was higher in the robot-assisted surgery group than in the traditional surgery group, but the difference between the two groups was not significant (P>0.05). All patients in both groups were followed up, with the follow-up time of 3-12 months in the robot-assisted surgery group (median, 6 months) and 3-14 months in the traditional surgery group (median, 6 months). The postoperative MSTS scores of both groups improved significantly when compared to those before surgery (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the changes in MSTS scores between the two groups (P>0.05). The postoperative VAS scores of both groups showed a gradually decreasing trend over time (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups after surgery (P>0.05). During follow-up, except for 1 case of postoperative infection in the traditional surgery group, there was no infections or recurrences in other cases. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative infection between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Orthopedic robot-assisted osteoid osteoma resection achieves similar short-term effectiveness when compared to traditional open surgery, with shorter lesion localization time.

Citation： LI Zhuoyu, LIU Weifeng, DENG Zhiping, JIN Tao, SUN Yang, YANG Yongkun, LI Yuan, YANG Fajun, YU Feng, HAO Lin, ZHANG Qing, NIU Xiaohui. Short-term effectiveness of orthopedic robot-assisted resection for osteoid osteoma. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2023, 37(11): 1319-1325. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202308032 Copy

1.	Lester PD, Scott M, Lignelli GJ, et al. Osteoid osteoma. JAMA, 1971, 218(5): 741.
2.	Shah J, Gandhi D, Chauhan A, et al. Imaging review of pediatric benign osteocytic tumors and latest updates on management. J Clin Med, 2021, 10(13): 2823.
3.	Meyer J, Priemel M, Rolvien T, et al. The diagnostic challenge of osteoid osteoma in the bones of the hand—A case series. Diagnostics (Basel), 2023, 13(7): 1279.
4.	Sagoo NS, Haider AS, Chen AL, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for spinal osteoid osteoma: A systematic review of safety and treatment outcomes. Surg Oncol, 2022, 41: 101747.
5.	Shanmugasundaram S, Nadkarni S, Kumar A, et al. Percutaneous ablative therapies for the management of osteoid osteomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2021, 44(5): 739-749.
6.	Giammalva GR, Dell’Aglio L, Guarrera B, et al. Transnasal endoscopic approach for osteoid osteoma of the odontoid process in a child: Technical note and systematic review of the literature. Brain Sci, 2022, 12(7): 916.
7.	Fan M, Fang Y, Zhang Q, et al. A prospective cohort study of the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive spinal surgery. BMC Surg, 2022, 22(1): 47.
8.	Yu F, Niu XH, Zhang Q, et al. Radiofrequency ablation under 3D intraoperative Iso-C C-arm navigation for the treatment of osteoid osteomas. Br J Radiol, 2015, 88(1056): 20140535.
9.	Spinelli MS, Balbaa MF, Gallazzi MB, et al. Role of percutaneous CT-guided radiofrequency ablation in treatment of intra-articular, in close contact with cartilage and extra-articular osteoid osteomas: comparative analysis and new classification system. Radiol Med, 2022, 127(10): 1142-1150.
10.	Tian W, Liu Y, Fan M, et al. CAMISS concept and its clinical application. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2018, 1093: 31-46.
11.	Han XG, Tang GQ, Han X, et al. Comparison of outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion in single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. Orthop Surg, 2021, 13(7): 2093-2101.
12.	Yan K, Zhang Q, Tian W. Comparison of accuracy and safety between second-generation TiRobot-assisted and free-hand thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement. BMC Surg, 2022, 22(1): 275.
13.	林書, 譚科, 胡豇, 等. 改良骨科機器人輔助椎體后凸成形術治療骨質疏松性椎體壓縮骨折療效分析. 中國修復重建外科雜志, 2022, 36(9): 1119-1125.
14.	張帥, 劉成, 孔祥朋, 等. 機器人輔助全髖關節置換術的臨床療效. 中華骨科雜志, 2023, 43(17): 1137-1145.
15.	喬樺, 何銳, 張經緯, 等. 機器人輔助全膝關節置換術的多中心臨床研究. 中華骨科雜志, 2023, 43(1): 23-30.
16.	費晨, 莊巖, 張堃, 等. 機器人結合 “O” 型臂輔助閉合復位經皮螺釘固定術治療不穩定性骨盆骨折. 中華骨科雜志, 2022, 42(13): 815-822.
17.	楊成志, 黃站珠, 唐經勵, 等. 骨科手術機器人與 “O” 型臂X線導航輔助骨盆骨折經皮內固定術的比較. 中華骨科雜志, 2021, 41(19): 1387-1395.
18.	楊勇昆, 劉巍峰. 骨科機器人輔助技術在骨腫瘤手術中的應用現狀. 中華骨科雜志, 2023, 43(5): 337-342.
19.	趙經緯, 張琦, 韋祎, 等. 基于5G的遠程機器人輔助胸腰椎骨折內固定術的臨床應用研究. 中國數字醫學, 2022, 17(6): 10-14.
20.	劉亞軍, 韓曉光, 田偉. 我國醫用機器人的研究現狀及展望. 骨科臨床與研究雜志, 2018, 3(4): 193-194.
21.	田偉, 張琦, 李祖昌, 等. 一站對多地5G遠程控制骨科機器人手術的臨床應用. 骨科臨床與研究雜志, 2019, 4(6): 349-354.
22.	Khan F, Pearle A, Lightcap C, et al. Haptic robot-assisted surgery improves accuracy of wide resection of bone tumors: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2013, 471(3): 851-859.
23.	Khan FA, Lipman JD, Pearle AD, et al. Surgical technique: Computer-generated custom jigs improve accuracy of wide resection of bone tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2013, 471(6): 2007-2016.
24.	Parisot L, Grillet F, Verdot P, et al. CT-guided microwave ablation of osteoid osteoma: Long-term outcome in 28 patients. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2022, 103(9): 427-432.
25.	Cerny J, Soukup J, Cerna S, et al. Current approaches to osteoid osteoma and minimally invasive surgery—A nireview and a case report. J Clin Med, 2022, 11(19): 5806.
26.	Le Corroller T, Vives T, Mattei JC, et al. Osteoid osteoma: percutaneous ct-guided cryoablation is a safe, effective, and durable treatment option in adults. Radiology, 2022, 302(2): 392-399.
27.	Wang TL, Luo YP, Zhou ZF, et al. O-arm-navigated, robot-assisted versus conventional ct guided radiofrequency ablation in treatment of osteoid osteoma: a retrospective cohort study. Front Surg, 2022, 9: 881852.
28.	Niazi GE, Basha MAA, Elsharkawi WFA, et al. Computed tomography-guided radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma in atypical sites: efficacy and safety in a large case series. Acad Radiol, 2021, 28(1): 68-76.
29.	Fiore F, Somma F, D’Angelo R, et al. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) guidance is helpful in reducing dose exposure to pediatric patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma. Radiol Med, 2022, 127(2): 183-190.
30.	Yang Y, Li Y, Zhang Q, et al. A case-control study of computer navigation assisted resection of primary sacral chordoma above sacrum 3 level. J Bone Oncol, 2020, 23: 100303.

1. Lester PD, Scott M, Lignelli GJ, et al. Osteoid osteoma. JAMA, 1971, 218(5): 741.
2. Shah J, Gandhi D, Chauhan A, et al. Imaging review of pediatric benign osteocytic tumors and latest updates on management. J Clin Med, 2021, 10(13): 2823.
3. Meyer J, Priemel M, Rolvien T, et al. The diagnostic challenge of osteoid osteoma in the bones of the hand—A case series. Diagnostics (Basel), 2023, 13(7): 1279.
4. Sagoo NS, Haider AS, Chen AL, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for spinal osteoid osteoma: A systematic review of safety and treatment outcomes. Surg Oncol, 2022, 41: 101747.
5. Shanmugasundaram S, Nadkarni S, Kumar A, et al. Percutaneous ablative therapies for the management of osteoid osteomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2021, 44(5): 739-749.
6. Giammalva GR, Dell’Aglio L, Guarrera B, et al. Transnasal endoscopic approach for osteoid osteoma of the odontoid process in a child: Technical note and systematic review of the literature. Brain Sci, 2022, 12(7): 916.
7. Fan M, Fang Y, Zhang Q, et al. A prospective cohort study of the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive spinal surgery. BMC Surg, 2022, 22(1): 47.
8. Yu F, Niu XH, Zhang Q, et al. Radiofrequency ablation under 3D intraoperative Iso-C C-arm navigation for the treatment of osteoid osteomas. Br J Radiol, 2015, 88(1056): 20140535.
9. Spinelli MS, Balbaa MF, Gallazzi MB, et al. Role of percutaneous CT-guided radiofrequency ablation in treatment of intra-articular, in close contact with cartilage and extra-articular osteoid osteomas: comparative analysis and new classification system. Radiol Med, 2022, 127(10): 1142-1150.
10. Tian W, Liu Y, Fan M, et al. CAMISS concept and its clinical application. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2018, 1093: 31-46.
11. Han XG, Tang GQ, Han X, et al. Comparison of outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion in single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. Orthop Surg, 2021, 13(7): 2093-2101.
12. Yan K, Zhang Q, Tian W. Comparison of accuracy and safety between second-generation TiRobot-assisted and free-hand thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement. BMC Surg, 2022, 22(1): 275.
13. 林書, 譚科, 胡豇, 等. 改良骨科機器人輔助椎體后凸成形術治療骨質疏松性椎體壓縮骨折療效分析. 中國修復重建外科雜志, 2022, 36(9): 1119-1125.
14. 張帥, 劉成, 孔祥朋, 等. 機器人輔助全髖關節置換術的臨床療效. 中華骨科雜志, 2023, 43(17): 1137-1145.
15. 喬樺, 何銳, 張經緯, 等. 機器人輔助全膝關節置換術的多中心臨床研究. 中華骨科雜志, 2023, 43(1): 23-30.
16. 費晨, 莊巖, 張堃, 等. 機器人結合 “O” 型臂輔助閉合復位經皮螺釘固定術治療不穩定性骨盆骨折. 中華骨科雜志, 2022, 42(13): 815-822.
17. 楊成志, 黃站珠, 唐經勵, 等. 骨科手術機器人與 “O” 型臂X線導航輔助骨盆骨折經皮內固定術的比較. 中華骨科雜志, 2021, 41(19): 1387-1395.
18. 楊勇昆, 劉巍峰. 骨科機器人輔助技術在骨腫瘤手術中的應用現狀. 中華骨科雜志, 2023, 43(5): 337-342.
19. 趙經緯, 張琦, 韋祎, 等. 基于5G的遠程機器人輔助胸腰椎骨折內固定術的臨床應用研究. 中國數字醫學, 2022, 17(6): 10-14.
20. 劉亞軍, 韓曉光, 田偉. 我國醫用機器人的研究現狀及展望. 骨科臨床與研究雜志, 2018, 3(4): 193-194.
21. 田偉, 張琦, 李祖昌, 等. 一站對多地5G遠程控制骨科機器人手術的臨床應用. 骨科臨床與研究雜志, 2019, 4(6): 349-354.
22. Khan F, Pearle A, Lightcap C, et al. Haptic robot-assisted surgery improves accuracy of wide resection of bone tumors: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2013, 471(3): 851-859.
23. Khan FA, Lipman JD, Pearle AD, et al. Surgical technique: Computer-generated custom jigs improve accuracy of wide resection of bone tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2013, 471(6): 2007-2016.
24. Parisot L, Grillet F, Verdot P, et al. CT-guided microwave ablation of osteoid osteoma: Long-term outcome in 28 patients. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2022, 103(9): 427-432.
25. Cerny J, Soukup J, Cerna S, et al. Current approaches to osteoid osteoma and minimally invasive surgery—A nireview and a case report. J Clin Med, 2022, 11(19): 5806.
26. Le Corroller T, Vives T, Mattei JC, et al. Osteoid osteoma: percutaneous ct-guided cryoablation is a safe, effective, and durable treatment option in adults. Radiology, 2022, 302(2): 392-399.
27. Wang TL, Luo YP, Zhou ZF, et al. O-arm-navigated, robot-assisted versus conventional ct guided radiofrequency ablation in treatment of osteoid osteoma: a retrospective cohort study. Front Surg, 2022, 9: 881852.
28. Niazi GE, Basha MAA, Elsharkawi WFA, et al. Computed tomography-guided radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma in atypical sites: efficacy and safety in a large case series. Acad Radiol, 2021, 28(1): 68-76.
29. Fiore F, Somma F, D’Angelo R, et al. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) guidance is helpful in reducing dose exposure to pediatric patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma. Radiol Med, 2022, 127(2): 183-190.
30. Yang Y, Li Y, Zhang Q, et al. A case-control study of computer navigation assisted resection of primary sacral chordoma above sacrum 3 level. J Bone Oncol, 2020, 23: 100303.

Next Article
A multicenter randomized controlled trial of domestic robot-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Short-term effectiveness of orthopedic robot-assisted resection for osteoid osteoma

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Next Article

Format

Content