Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35840958›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2022

Comparison of accuracy and safety between second-generation TiRobot-assisted and free-hand thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement.

Kai Yan, Qi Zhang, Wei Tian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Single-arm meta-analysis on robotic spine instrumentation for young patients.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Analysis of root causes of adverse events with Mazor X and Mazor X stealth edition-guided spine surgeries: an FDA MAUDE database study.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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar partial laminectomy assisted by a new miniature parallel surgical robot system: a trial on a cadaveric specimen.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. [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 · 2023
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kai Yan *Department of Spine Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, No. 31, Xinjiekou East St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100035, China.
Qi Zhang *Department of Spine Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, No. 31, Xinjiekou East St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100035, China.
Wei TianDepartment of Spine Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, No. 31, Xinjiekou East St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100035, China. tianwei_spine@sina.com.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNBeijing Jishuitan Hospital · CN

Funding

Beijing Jishuitan Hospital Elite Young Scholar Program XKGG201813CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences 2021-I2M-5-007National Key R&D Program of China 2017YFC0110603
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobot-assisted spine surgery aims to improve the accuracy of screw placement. We compared the accuracy and safety between a novel robot and free hand in thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement.

methodsEighty patients scheduled to undergo robot-assisted (40 patients) and free-hand (40 patients) pedicle screw placement were included. The patients' demographic characteristics, radiographic accuracy, and perioperative outcomes were compared. The accuracy of screw placement was based on cortical violation and screw deviation. Safety outcomes mainly included operative time, blood loss, revision, and complications.

resultsA total of 178 and 172 screws were placed in the robot-assisted and free-hand groups, respectively. The rate of perfect screw position (grade A) was higher in the robot-assisted group than in the free-hand group (91.0% vs. 75.6%; P < 0.001). The rate of clinically acceptable screw position (grades A and B) was also higher in the robot-assisted group than in the free-hand group (99.4% vs. 90.1%; P < 0.001). The robot-assisted group had significantly lower screw deviation than the free-hand group [1.46 (0.94, 1.95) mm vs. 2.48 (1.09, 3.74) mm, P < 0.001]. There was no robot abandonment in the robot-assisted group. No revision was required in any of the groups.

conclusionsRobot-assisted pedicle screw placement is more accurate than free-hand placement. The second-generation TiRobot-assisted thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement is an accurate and safe procedure. Trial registration retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionHumansLumbar VertebraeOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesSpineAccuracyPedicle screw placementRobotThoracolumbar spine

Identifiers

PMID35840958
PMCPMC9288055
OpenAlexW4285492963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.