ArticleBMC surgery2022
A prospective cohort study of the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive spinal surgery.
Article in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04040868 (Safety and Accuracy of Robot-assisted Versus Fluoroscopy-assisted Screw Insertion in Spinal Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 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.
Safety and Accuracy of Robot-assisted Versus Fluoroscopy-assisted Screw Insertion in Spinal Surgery: a Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Robot-assisted unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis: ipsilateral direct with contralateral indirect decompression.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Article
- Robot-assisted spinal surgery: technological maturity, clinical evidence, and future directions.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Review
- Research on traumatic orthopedic surgery robots: a decade bibliometric analysis of research landscapes and evolving frontiers.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Robotically assisted spondylodesis for left-sided herniated disc L4-5 and spondylolysis L5-S1.Neurosurgical focus: Video · 2025Article
- Robotic-Guided Spine Surgery: Implementation of a System in Routine Clinical Practice-An Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Computer-aided robotics for applications in fracture reduction surgery: Advances, challenges, and opportunities.iScience · 2025Review
- [Preliminary comparative study of spinal robot-assisted pedicle screw placement using different surgical approaches].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- [Short-term effectiveness of orthopedic robot-assisted resection for osteoid osteoma].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted open surgery (RA-OS) is now commonly used in traditional open-exposure spinal screw placement surgery. With the help of robots, robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RA-MIS) can achieve less bleeding and less tissue damage in percutaneous screw insertion. While the research comparing the safety and accuracy of screw placement between RA-MIS and RA-OS is insufficient. This study aims to compare the effects of RA-MIS and RA-OS in thoracic and lumbar spine.
methodsThis was a prospective cohort study evaluating 208 patients undergoing robot-assisted screw insertions from July 2020 to September 2021. Age, BMI, gender, screws accuracy, screws Gertzbein-Robbins grade, small joint invasion and perioperative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, comorbidity) were collected. A subgroup analysis was also performed according to disease, namely fracture, spondylolisthesis, and disc herniation. Data were analyzed using Stata/MP 14.0. Wilcoxon's signed rank test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical tests and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 1030 screws were inserted; 368 minimally invasive screws and 662 open screws. The acceptability of screw insertion in the RA-MIS and RA-OS was 97.3% and 95.6% respectively. There was no statistical difference between the RA-MIS group and RA-OS group in age (p = 0.106), gender (p = 0.074), BMI (p = 0.181) and comorbidity (p = 0.203). Compared with RA-OS, RA-MIS had less blood loss (p < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.008). In the minimally invasive surgery group, the fracture subgroup had smaller screw deviation, less blood loss, and shorter operation time compared with the other subgroups (p < 0.01). Specifically, RA-MIS significantly reduced the postoperative hospital stay of patients with spondylolisthesis compared with RA-OS (p < 0.01).
conclusionRA-OS and RA-MIS had equal accuracy and safety. Compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgery reduced blood loss in each subgroup and shortened the postoperative hospital stay in the spondylolisthesis subgroup. Compared with the other subgroups under minimally invasive surgery, the fracture subgroup had less blood loss and shorter operation time. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT04040868. Registered 1 March 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04040868?cond=Accuracy+Study+of+Robot-assisted+Screw+Insertion+in+Spinal+Surgery&draw=2&rank=1 .
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.