Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34235996›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2023

Is There a Difference in Screw Accuracy, Robot Time Per Screw, Robot Abandonment, and Radiation Exposure Between the Mazor X and the Renaissance? A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 1179 Robot-Assisted Screws.

Nathan J Lee, Scott L Zuckerman, Ian A Buchanan, Venkat Boddapati, Justin Mathew, Gerard Marciano, Djani Robertson, Nikita Lakomkin, Paul J Park, Eric Leung and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Global spine journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nathan J LeeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9572-5968
Scott L ZuckermanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.
Ian A BuchananDepartment of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.
Venkat BoddapatiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.
Justin MathewDepartment of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7699-780X
Gerard MarcianoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.
Djani RobertsonDepartment of Orthopaedics, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Nikita LakomkinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Paul J ParkDepartment of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.
Eric LeungDepartment of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8722-8056
Joseph M LombardiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.
Ronald A LehmanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.
Columbia University Irving Medical Center · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USNYU Langone Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designProspective single-cohort analysis.

objectivesTo compare the outcomes/complications of 2 robotic systems for spine surgery.

methodsAdult patients (≥18-years-old) who underwent robot-assisted spine surgery from 2016-2019 were assessed. A propensity score matching (PSM) algorithm was used to match Mazor X to Renaissance cases. Preoperative CT scan for planning and an intraoperative O-arm for screw evaluation were preformed. Outcomes included screw accuracy, robot time/screw, robot abandonment, and radiation. Screw accuracy was measured using Vitrea Core software by 2 orthopedic surgeons. Screw breach was measured according to the Gertzbein/Robbins classification.

resultsAfter PSA, a total of 65 patients (Renaissance: 22 vs. X: 43) were included. Patient/operative factors were similar between robot systems (

conclusionThis is the first comparative analyses of screw accuracy, robot time/screw, robot abandonment, and radiation exposure between the Mazor X and Renaissance systems. There are substantial improvements in the X robot, particularly in the perioperative planning processes, which likely contribute to the X's superiority in S2AI screw accuracy by nearly 8-fold and robot reliability by nearly 10-fold.

Indexed as

mazorxradiation exposurerenaissancerobot abandonmentrobot-assisted spine surgeryrobot time per screws2 alar-iliac screwscrew accuracy

Identifiers

PMID34235996
PMCPMC10416583
OpenAlexW3178637602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.