Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36515789›Full record

ReviewNeurosurgical review2022

R2 advances in robotic-assisted spine surgery: comparative analysis of options, future directions, and bibliometric analysis of the literature.

William Mualem, Chiduziem Onyedimma, Abdul Karim Ghaith, Sulaman Durrani, Ryan Jarrah, Rohin Singh, Cameron Zamanian, Karim Rizwan Nathani, Brett A Freedman, Mohamad Bydon

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Global analysis and prospects of assisted pedicle screw placement surgery: a bibliometric 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
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

10 authors.

William MualemMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Chiduziem OnyedimmaMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abdul Karim GhaithMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sulaman DurraniMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ryan JarrahMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Rohin SinghAlix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Cameron ZamanianMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Karim Rizwan NathaniMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Brett A FreedmanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mohamad BydonMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. bydon.mohamad@mayo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spine surgery has undergone rapid advancements over the past several decades with the emergence of robotic and minimally invasive surgery (MIS). While conventional MIS spine surgery has had relative success, its complication profile has warranted continued efforts to improve clinical outcomes. We discuss the functional, clinical, and financial aspects of four robotic options for spinal pathologies, namely ROSA, Mazor X, Da Vinci, and ExcelsiusGPS, and conduct a bibliometric analysis to better understand current trends and applications of these robots as the field of robotic spine surgery continues to grow. An extensive search of English-language published literature on robotic-assisted spinal surgery was performed in Elsevier's Scopus database. A bibliometric analysis was then performed on the top 100 most cited papers. The search yielded articles regarding robotic-assisted spine surgery application, limitations, and functional outcomes secondary to spine pathology. Accuracy analyses of 1733 screw placements were reviewed. The top 100 papers were published between 1992 and 2020, with a significant increase from 2015 onwards. The top publishing institution was John Hopkins University (n = 8). The top contributing author was Dr. Isador H. Lieberman (n = 6). The USA (n = 34) had the most articles on robotic spinal surgery, followed by Germany (n = 12). This review examines robotic applications in spine surgery, including four available options: ROSA, Mazor X, Da Vinci, and ExcelsiusGPS. Publication output over time, surgical outcomes, screw accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of these technologies have been investigated here. Certain robots have functional, clinical, and financial differences worth noting. Given the dearth of existing literature reporting postoperative complications and long-term comparative outcomes, there is a clear need for further studies on this matter.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresBibliometricsHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeurosurgical ProceduresSpineDegenerative diseaseRobotSpinal surgerySpine

Identifiers

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.