In spinal surgery, the accurate placement of implants is the key to ensure the success of the surgery, to achieve the safety and clinical requirements of internal fixation. Robot-assisted technology has become an effective means to improve the accuracy of implants with higher accuracy, free from fatigue and equivalent repetitive operation. The investigators present the design of a randomized trial to compare the accuracy and safety of screw insertion using the robot-assisted technique versus the conventional fluoroscopy-assisted technique in spine surgery at multicenter.~500 participants per group (1000 participants in total) are being recruited after diagnosis and before treatment through multi-hospital system and randomised to 1) robot-assisted technique or 2) conventional fluoroscopy-assisted technique in spine surgery. Outcomes are being measured pre-operatively, during- surgery and at 3, 6, 12 months post-surgery. The accuracy and safety of screw insertion are measured by deviation of guide pin placement position, deviation of screw placement position, and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Secondary outcome parameters such as radiation exposure, postoperative recovery, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay and economic appraisal were also evaluated and compared between treatment groups.~The study is addressing key questions of importance by evaluating the TiRobot-assisted technique versus the conventional fluoroscopy-assisted technique in spine surgery at multicenter. Outputs include evidence to facilitate more effective and safe decision making about surgical treatment for spine.
The investigators present the design of a randomized trial to compare the accuracy and safety of screw insertion using the robot-assisted technique versus the conventional fluoroscopy-assisted technique in spine surgery at multicenter. The accuracy and safety of screw insertion are measured by deviation of guide pin placement position, deviation of screw placement position, and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Secondary outcome parameters such as radiation exposure, postoperative recovery, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay and economic appraisal were also evaluated and compared between treatment groups.