ArticleNeurospine2021
Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease.
Article in Neurospine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lumbar spinal stenosis: current concept of management.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Clinical application of spinal robot in cervical spine surgery: safety and accuracy of posterior pedicle screw placement in comparison with conventional freehand methods.Neurosurgical review · 2023Article
- Robotics in Cervical Spine Surgery: Feasibility and Safety of Posterior Screw Placement.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Article
- Commentary on "Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease".Neurospine · 2021Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere have been no clinical studies comparing different robotic techniques. We compare minimally invasive, robot-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RGTLIF) and mini-open robot-guided posterior lumbar interbody fusion (RG-PLIF).
methodsUsing data from a prospective institutional registry, we identified 38 patients who underwent RG-PLIF. Propensity score matching using a nearest-neighbor algorithm was implemented to select RG-TLIF controls. Twelve-month patient-reported outcome measures are presented. A reduction of ≥ 30% from baseline was defined as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).
resultsAmong the 76 included patients, there was no difference between RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF in surgical time (132.3 ± 29.4 minutes vs. 156.5 ± 53.0 minutes, p = 0.162), length of stay (55.9 ± 20.0 hours vs. 57.2 ± 18.8 hours, p = 0.683), and radiation dose area product (310.6 ± 126.1 mGy × cm2 vs. 287.9 ± 90.3 mGy × cm2, p = 0.370). However, while there was no difference among the 2 groups in terms of raw postoperative patient-reported outcome measures scores (all p > 0.05), MCID in leg pain was greater for RG-PLIF (55.3% vs. 78.9%, p = 0.028), and MCID in Oswestry Disability Index was greater for RG-TLIF (92.1% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.009). There was no difference concerning back pain (81.6% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.185).
conclusionOur findings suggest that both RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF are viable and equally effective techniques in robotic spine surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.