O-Arm-Navigated, Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional CT Guided Radiofrequency Ablation in Treatment of Osteoid Osteoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Tian-Long Wang; Yi-Ping Luo; Zi-Fei Zhou; Jun-Feng Liu; Xiao-Dong Hou; Shao-Hua Jia; Long-Po Zheng

doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.881852

O-Arm-Navigated, Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional CT Guided Radiofrequency Ablation in Treatment of Osteoid Osteoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Front Surg. 2022 May 2:9:881852. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.881852. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Tian-Long Wang¹, Yi-Ping Luo¹, Zi-Fei Zhou¹, Jun-Feng Liu¹, Xiao-Dong Hou¹, Shao-Hua Jia¹, Long-Po Zheng¹

Affiliation

¹ Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Abstract

Background: Osteoid osteoma is a common benign bone tumor, and clinically there is severe local pain that typically worsens at night. The conventional CT-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was widely used in the treatment of osteoid osteoma (OO), which could result in some radiation-related and imprecise complications due to the overdose of radiation exposure. This study aimed to compare the surgical effect of robot-assisted RFA with O-arm navigation and conventional CT-guided RFA in the treatment of OO.

Methods: Sixty-two patients who underwent robot-assisted RFA with O-arm navigation (Robot-RFA, n = 24) or CT-guided RFA (CT-RFA, n = 38) were included in this retrospective cohort study. The mean follow-up time was 23.3 months. The intra-operative data, primary technical success rate, visual analog scale (VAS), and post-operative complications were analyzed.

Results: Primary technical success was obtained in 23 patients who had robot-assisted RFA, and 35 patients who had conventional CT-guided RFA. One patient in Robot-RFA group and three patients in CT-RFA group with pain recurrence received repeat-RFA and had a secondary success. Mean operation time and dose of radiation exposure were lower in Robot-RFA group than that in CT-RFA group. The Robot-RFA group took fewer K-wire adjustment times for each patient than the CT-RFA group. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean operation time, dose of radiation exposure, and K-wire adjustment times between the groups (p < 0.05). No complications associated with the procedure were reported in the two groups during the follow-up period.

Conclusion: Robot-assisted RFA with O-arm navigation is a safer and more precise strategy in the treatment of osteoid osteoma with less operation time and radiation exposure compared with the conventional CT-guided radiofrequency ablation.

Keywords: imaging; minimally invasion; osteoid; osteoma; radiofrequency ablation; robotic surgical procedures; three-dimensional.