ArticleGlobal spine journal2023
Anatomical and Technical Considerations of Robot-Assisted Cervical Pedicle Screw Placement: A Cadaveric Study.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Framework of State Estimation on Laminar Grinding Based on the CT Image-Force Model.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Navigated percutaneous placement of cervical pedicle screws: An anatomical feasibility study.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Robotics in Cervical Spine Surgery: Feasibility and Safety of Posterior Screw Placement.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Commentary on "Robotics in Cervical Spine Surgery: Feasibility and Safety of Posterior Screw Placement".Neurospine · 2023Article
- Robot-assisted cervical pedicle screw placement using a novel hybrid dilator technique: A clinical series of 565 screws.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designCadaver study.
objectivesAssess the feasibility of robot-assisted cervical pedicle screw (RA-CPS) placement and understand the anatomical considerations of this technique.
methodsFour cadaver specimens free from bony pathology were acquired. Anatomical considerations, such as pedicle width (PW) and height (PH), transverse pedicle angle (TPA), and maximal screw length (MSL), were recorded from preoperative computational tomography (CT) scans. Intraoperative cone-beam CT was acquired and registered to the robotic system. After cervical levels were segmented, screw sizes and trajectories were planned, and RA-CPS were placed. Accuracy was assessed using Gertzbein and Robbin's classification on postoperative CT scans.
resultsThirty-five RA-CPS were placed. Major breaches (≥Grade C) occurred in 28.57% screws. Grade A or B accuracy was found in 71.43% of screws, with the most common direction of breach being medial (81.3%). The greatest proportion of breach per level occurred in the upper subaxial levels, (C3:71.4%, C4 66.6%, C5:50%) which had the smallest PW (C3: 4.34 ± .96 mm, C4: 4.48 ± .60, C5: 5.76 ± 1.11). PH was greatest at C2 (8.14 ± 1.89 mm) and ranged subaxial from 6.36 mm (C3) to 7.48 mm (C7). The mean PW was 5.37 mm and increased caudally from 4.34 mm (C3) to 6.31 mm (C7). The mean TPA was 39.9° and decreased moving caudally 46.9°) to C7 (34.4°). The MSL was 37.1 mm and increased from C2 (26.3 mm) to C7 (41.0 mm).
conclusionRA-CPS has the potential to be feasible, but technological and instrument modifications are necessary to increase the accuracy in the cervical region.
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.