Pedicle screw fixation is the gold standard for thoracic spine stabilization, but its accuracy is critical due to neurological and vascular complication risks. Robotic-assisted techniques show promise in improving accuracy and reducing radiation, but thoracic-specific evidence is limited. This prospective multicentric observational cohort study involves 6 high-volume centers. 100 adult patients (18-65 years) undergoing robot-assisted thoracic pedicle screw fixation will be recruited. The standardized workflow includes positioning, robotic arm mounting, registration (CT-to-fluoroscopy or scan-and-plan), and screw insertion using powered instrumentation. Data collection will cover preoperative demographics, intraoperative parameters (operative time, radiation exposure, blood loss), and postoperative outcomes. Accuracy will be assessed via the Gertzbein-Robbins grading system on postoperative CT or O-arm scans. Efficiency metrics will cover registration, planning, and screw insertion times. Clinical outcomes (VAS, ODI, SRS-22, patient satisfaction) will be evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months. This multicentric trial will provide real-world evidence on robot-assisted thoracic pedicle screw fixation. The expectation is to develop a standardized workflow, yielding significantly higher screw placement accuracy than conventional techniques, while achieving comparable clinical outcomes. Knowledge of Robotic pedicle screw fixation utility specific to the thoracic spine is limited. This study contributes by evaluating and comparing the two registration techniques (CT-to-Fluoroscopy and Scan-and-Plan), and assessing the accuracy, safety, efficiency, and clinical outcomes of robot-assisted thoracic pedicle screw placement.

Keywords

Accuracy; Multicentric trial; Robotic spine surgery; Thoracic pedicle screw; Workflow standardization.

1. Li, G., Lv, G., Passias, P., Kozanek, M., Xu, K., Deng, Y., & Li, F. (2010). Complications associated with thoracic pedicle screws in spinal deformity. European Spine Journal, 19(9), 1576–1584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1430-8
2. Brasiliense, L. B., Theodore, N., Lazaro, B. C., Sayed, Z. A., Rekate, H. L., & Crawford, N. R. (2010). Quantitative analysis of misplaced pedicle screws in the thoracic spine: How much pullout strength is lost? Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 12(5), 503–508. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.11.SPINE09438
3. Kosmopoulos, V., & Schizas, C. (2007). Pedicle screw placement accuracy: A meta-analysis. Spine, 32(3), E111–E120. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000254048.74002.44
4. Fan, Y., Du, J. P., Liu, J. J., Zhang, J. N., Liu, S. C., & Hao, D. J. (2018). Accuracy of pedicle screw placement comparing robot-assisted technology and the free-hand with fluoroscopy-guided method in spine surgery: An updated meta-analysis. Medicine, 97(22), Article e10970. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010970
5. Gao, S., Lv, Z., & Fang, H. (2018). Robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Spine Journal, 27(4), 921–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5333-8
6. Li, H. M., Zhang, R. J., & Shen, C. L. (2020). Accuracy of pedicle screw placement and clinical outcomes of robot-assisted technique versus conventional freehand technique in spine surgery from nine randomized controlled trials: A meta-analysis. Spine, 45(2), E111–E119. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003195
7. Liu, H., Chen, W., Wang, Z., Lin, J., Meng, B., & Yang, H. (2016). Comparison of the accuracy between robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 11(12), 2273–2281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1448-6
8. Macke, J. J., Woo, R., & Varich, L. (2016). Accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the pediatric population. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 10(2), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0584-8
9. Belmont, P. J., Jr., Klemme, W. R., Dhawan, A., & Polly, D. W., Jr. (2001). In vivo accuracy of thoracic pedicle screws. Spine, 26(21), 2340–2346. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200111010-00010
10. Di Silvestre, M., Parisini, P., Lolli, F., & Bakaloudis, G. (2007). Complications of thoracic pedicle screws in scoliosis treatment. Spine, 32(15), 1655–1661. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000000
11. Gokcen, H. B., Erdogan, S., Ozturk, S., & Gumussuyu, G. (2018). Sagittal orientation and uniform entry for thoracic pedicle screw placement with free-hand technique: A retrospective study on 382 pedicle screws. International Journal of Surgery, 51, 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.01.011
12. Perdomo-Pantoja, A., Ishida, W., Zygourakis, C., Holmes, C., Iyer, R. R., Cottrill, E., Theodore, N., Sheng-Fu, L. L., & Witham, T. F. (2019). Accuracy of current techniques for placement of pedicle screws in the spine: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 51,161 screws. World Neurosurgery, 126, 664–678.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.217
13. Khan, A., Soliman, M. A. R., Lee, N. J., Waqas, M., Lombardi, J. M., Boddapati, V., Levy, L. C., Mao, J. Z., Park, P. J., Mathew, J., Lehman, R. A., Mullin, J. P., & Pollina, J. (2022). CT-to-fluoroscopy registration versus scan-and-plan registration for robot-assisted insertion of lumbar pedicle screws. Neurosurgical Focus, 52(1), Article E8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2021.10.FOCUS21506
14. Muniasamy, K., Sivakumar, A., Rameshbabu, K. N., Ganesan, A., Rajkumar, V. A., Deshmukh, G. V., & Sharma, S. V. S. (2024). Patient satisfaction and quality of life outcomes following robotic-assisted surgery: A survey-based study. Bioinformation, 20(12), 1964–1969. https://doi.org/10.6026/973206300201964
15. Garufi, G., Scalia, G., Graziano, F., Costanzo, R., Porzio, M., Ponzo, G., Giuffrida, M., Ricciardo, G., Umana, G. E., Nicoletti, G. F., & Cardali, S. M. (2025). Robot-assisted versus navigated spinal fusion surgery: A comparative multicenter study on transpedicular screw placement accuracy and patient outcomes. Neurosurgical Review, 48(1), Article 524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03674-z
16. Lee, N. J., Leung, E., Buchanan, I. A., Geiselmann, M., Coury, J. R., Simhon, M. E., Zuckerman, S., Buchholz, A. L., Pollina, J., Jazini, E., Haines, C., Schuler, T. C., Good, C. R., Lombardi, J., & Lehman, R. A. (2022). A multicenter study of the 5-year trends in robot-assisted spine surgery outcomes and complications. Journal of Spine Surgery, 8(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-21-102
17. Orosz, L. D., Lee, N. J., Gum, J. L., Lehman, R. A., Hage, T. R., Katz, J., Amell-Angst, T., Roy, R. T., Poulter, G. T., Haines, C. M., Jazini, E., & Good, C. R. (2025). Ninety-day complication and revision surgery rates using navigated robotics in thoracolumbar spine surgery: A PRoGRSS interim analysis. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 19(4), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.14444/8777