SynthesisJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2022
Efficacy and safety of robotic spine surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted technique versus freehand technique for spine surgery: an umbrella review.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy and Safety Between Robot-Assisted and Conventional Freehand Fluoroscope-Assisted Placement of Pedicle Screws in Thoracolumbar Spine: Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- National Utilization of Navigation and Robotics in Inpatient Spinal Fusion Remains Low but is Increasing, 2016-2022.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement: Two-Center Experience with Learning Curve Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Optimizing Outcomes in Spinal Tumor Surgery: A Meta-analysis Comparing Robotic and Freehand Pedicle Screw Placement.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Article
- Radiation Exposure in Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional and Navigation-Assisted Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression of 3205 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in spinal surgery: an updated systematic umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis of comparisons against freehand and navigation-guided techniques.EFORT open reviews · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted vs. fluoroscopy-assisted MIS-TLIF: improved screw accuracy and reduced early opioid use with comparable long-term outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Applications of robotic technology in orthopaedic surgery: A technology review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Accuracy and potential risk factors of pedicle screw placement using a noninvasive-registration robotic system in the thoracolumbar spine.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Influence of prone, supine, and lateral positions during spine surgery on vascular, abdominal, and postural anatomy: a comprehensive review and Bayesian meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Review
- Is robot-assisted pedicle screw placement really superior to conventional surgery? An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- Augmented reality guidance improves accuracy of orthopedic drilling procedures.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Impact of Navigation in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Study of Historical Aspects, Current Techniques and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The optimal introversion angle and length of pedicle screw to avoid L1-S1 vascular damage.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Clinical Application and Curative Effect Analysis of Postural Awareness Surgical Tool Assisted Nail Placement in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- 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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic surgery (RS) may offer benefits compared with freehand/conventional surgery (FS) in the treatment of patients with spinal disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RS versus FS in spinal fusion.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Data analysis and risk of bias assessment were analysed using REVMAN V5.3.
resultsWe found 11 randomised clinical trials involving 817 patients (FS: 408, RS: 409). The main diagnosis was degenerative spine disease. SpineAssist, Renaissance (Mazor Robotics), Tianji Robot and TiRobot robots (TINAVI Medical Technologies) were used. Pedicle screw placement within the safety zone (grades A + B according to the Gertzbein and Robbins scale) ranged from 93% to 100% in FS versus 85-100% in RS (relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.03, p = 0.14). Regarding intervention time, the meta-analysis showed a mean difference (MD) of 6.45 min (95% CI -13.59 to 26.49, p = 0.53). Mean hospital stay was MD of -0.36 days (95% CI -1.03 to 0.31, p = 0.30) with no differences between groups. Contradictory results were found regarding fluoroscopy time, although there seems to be a lower radiation dose in RS versus FS (p < 0.05). Regarding safety, the studies included surgical revision frequency.
conclusionsNo conclusive results were found suggesting that there are benefits in using RS over FS for spinal fusion. Further research with adequate patient selection, robot type and quality-of-life variables is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: level 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.