Background and Objectives: Spine surgery has undergone significant advancements, particularly with regard to robotic systems that enhance surgical techniques and improve patient outcomes. As these technologies become increasingly integrated into surgical practice, it is essential to evaluate their added value and cost savings. Hence, this study compared robot-assisted and navigation-based spine surgery, focusing on surgical efficiency. Materials and Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing single- and double-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) surgeries. Patients were divided into two groups: those who had robot-assisted and navigation-based surgeries, stratified by surgery type (TLIF or OLIF) and fusion levels (one or two). A comparative analysis of factors related to surgical efficiency, including operative duration, blood loss, and length of hospital stay, was conducted. Results: Our results showed a statistically significant reduction in operative duration for robot-assisted one- and two-level OLIF cases, with average time savings of 50 and 62 min, respectively, compared to navigation-based surgery. These time savings translated to an estimated cost reduction of SGD 1500 for the hospital for each patient for a two-level OLIF procedure and could be higher as the number of operated levels increase. Conclusions: These results indicated that robot-assisted spine surgery offers superior surgical efficiency and cost savings, particularly with increased numbers of surgical levels. As robotic technologies evolve, their integration into spine surgery is justified, promising improved patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

The ideal rotator cuff repair technique should allow for a quick and simple arthroscopic application which provides both adequate biomechanical stability and an appropriate biological state with the intention of promoting eventual healing of tendon to bone. While the biomechanical superiority of double-row repairs including higher repair strength, reduced gap formation, and wider footprint restoration have been proven, controversy remains regarding the clinical benefits of knotless compared with knot tying techniques. Our study aims to review the available evidence in the literature comparing the clinical outcomes between knotted and knotless transosseous double-row rotator cuff repair techniques. A systematic literature search via PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted by 2 independent reviewers. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using the double-row knotted and knotless surgical techniques were identified. Data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3, using Mantel-Haenszel statistics with both fixed and random effect models. A total of 1144 studies were identified from our initial search. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 studies were eventually selected for our review. The selected studies were published between 2012 and 2018. Of the 8 studies, 3 reported level 2 evidence and 5 reported level 3 evidence. There were a total of 589 subjects. Our meta-analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in functional outcomes postoperatively when comparing Constant score (mean difference = −1.85, 95% confidence interval: −4.42 to 0.73), University of California at Los Angeles score (mean differences = −0.14, 95% confidence interval: −0.90 to 0.62), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (mean differences = −2.19, 95% confidence interval: −5.55 to 1.17) between patients who underwent knotted and knotless rotator cuff repairs. Our review revealed no statistically significant difference in functional outcomes between knotted and knotless transosseous double-row techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis related to this topic. However, no level 1 studies were available for this review. Further studies related to this topic should focus on reporting level 1 evidence comparing the clinical outcomes of knotless and knotted techniques for double-row repairs.

Background: Robotic systems have the potential to significantly enhance the accuracy and outcomes of spinal surgery. Adopting this new technology requires an examination of its learning curve and influencing factors. This study analyzes the learning curve associated with using the Mazor X Stealth Edition system for pedicle screw placement and performs a matched-pair analysis to compare operative durations between robot-assisted and navigation-based surgeries, evaluating the efficiency of the robotic system. Methods: We collected retrospective operative data from patients who underwent robot-assisted pedicle screw placements between December 2020 and June 2024 and conducted a cumulative sum (CuSUM) analysis to assess the learning curve, focusing on the robotic system’s setup duration. Additionally, we compared a group of patients who underwent robot-assisted pedicle screw placements with a pair-matched group who underwent O-arm-based navigation-assisted pedicle screw placements. Results: There was a notable decrease in the robotic setup duration, with a significant shift in trend observed after the first 20 cases. While the initial setup time was 24 minutes, it reduced to 17 minutes in later cases, reflecting a marked improvement in efficiency as the surgeon gained more experience with the robot. Conclusion: Our findings indicate there were no added difficulties using the robotic system compared to the navigation system. Moreover, the learning curve for the robotic system can be quickly surmounted, and it offers clear advantages over previous systems, making it a valuable tool for pedicle screw application.

The integration of robotic technology into spinal surgery has led to a remarkable transformation, offering improved precision and safety. The “CT-Fluoro merge” and “Scan-and-Plan” methods for pedicle screw application promise numerous advantages, minimizing risks associated with traditional approaches. Our early series of patients who underwent robot-assisted pedicle screw placements for various indications, predominantly lumbar spondylosis, revealed no complications related to screws, neurological deficits, or unplanned returns to the operating theatre, thus emphasizing the safety and effectiveness of the robot. Studies have consistently demonstrated the superiority of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in terms of accuracy, with decreasing rates of technical issues indicating improvements in reliability and precision. Our experiences align with these findings, signalling the emergence of robotic spine surgery as the forthcoming standard of care in the field. This short communication explores the steps involved in robotic pedicle screw placement, discusses nuances for improving safety, and emphasizes its benefits and implications for the future of spinal care.