Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35020080›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022

Robotic-guided placement of cervical pedicle screws: feasibility and accuracy.

Stanley Kisinde, Xiaobang Hu, Shea Hesselbacher, Alexander M Satin, Isador H Lieberman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement using a patient-specific template guide system and risk factor analysis for screw perforation: CT-based evaluation of 437 screws.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  11. A surgeon-controlled mode of robotic assistance with posterolateral approach helps achieve highly medialized cervical pedicle screw placement to avoid vertebral artery injury.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  12. S8 Navigation system combined with an ultrasonic osteotome for three-dimensional real-time dynamic visualization decompression to reduce postoperative neurological deterioration in thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Robotic assistance for upper cervical instrumentation: report on accuracy and safety.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stanley KisindeScoliosis and Spine Tumor Center, Texas Back Institute/HCA, 6020 West Parker Road, Suite 200A, Plano, TX, 75093, USA.
Xiaobang HuUniversity of Texas South Western Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Shea HesselbacherScoliosis and Spine Tumor Center, Texas Back Institute/HCA, 6020 West Parker Road, Suite 200A, Plano, TX, 75093, USA.
Alexander M SatinScoliosis and Spine Tumor Center, Texas Back Institute/HCA, 6020 West Parker Road, Suite 200A, Plano, TX, 75093, USA.
Isador H LiebermanScoliosis and Spine Tumor Center, Texas Back Institute/HCA, 6020 West Parker Road, Suite 200A, Plano, TX, 75093, USA. ilieberman@texasback.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6889-6136
Texas Back Institute · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIt has been shown that pedicle screw instrumentation in the cervical spine has superior biomechanical pullout strength and stability. However, due to the complex and variable anatomy of the cervical pedicles and the risk of catastrophic complications, cervical pedicle screw placement is not widely utilized. STUDY

designA retrospective, consecutive patient review.

objectiveTo review and report our experience with robotic guided cervical pedicle screw placement.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed preoperative and postoperative CT scans of 12 consecutive patients who underwent cervical pedicle screw fixation with robotic guidance. Screw placement and deviation from the preoperative plan were assessed using the robotic system's planning software by fusing the preoperative CT (with the planned cervical pedicle screws) to the post-op CT. This process was carried out by manually aligning the anatomical landmarks on the two CTs. Once a satisfactory fusion was achieved, the software's measurement tool was used manually to compare the planned vs. actual screw placements in the axial, sagittal and coronal planes within the instrumented pedicle in a resolution of 0.1 mm. Medical charts were reviewed for technical issues and intra-operative complications.

resultsEighty-eight cervical pedicle screws were reviewed in 12 patients; mean age = 65 years, M:F = 2:1, and mean BMI = 27.99. No intra-operative complications related to the cervical pedicle screw placement were reported. Robotic guidance was successful in all 88 screws: eight in C2, 14 in C3, 16 in each of C4 and C5, 19 in C6, and 15 at C7. There were 14 pedicle screw breaches (15.9%); all were medial, less than 1 mm, and with no clinical consequences. In the axial plane, the screws deviated from the preoperative plan by 1.32 ± 1.17 mm and in the sagittal plane by 1.27 ± 1.00 mm. In the trajectory view, the overall deviation was 2.20 ± 1.17 mm. Although differences were observed in screw deviation from the pre-op plan between the right and left sides, they were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

conclusionThis study indicates that robotic-guided cervical pedicle screw placement is feasible and safe. The medial breaches did not result in any clinical consequences.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionAgedCervical VertebraeFeasibility StudiesHumansRetrospective StudiesCervical pedicle screwsPre-op planning softwareRobotic guidance

Identifiers

PMID35020080
OpenAlexW4206051341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.