Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37016881›Full record

ArticleNeurospine2023

Robotics in Cervical Spine Surgery: Feasibility and Safety of Posterior Screw Placement.

Lu-Ping Zhou, Zhi-Gang Zhang, Dui Li, Shu Fang, Rui Sheng, Ren-Jie Zhang, Cai-Liang Shen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurospine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 5G-Enabled remote Robotic-Assisted percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in single thoracolumbar fractures: initial clinical feasibility and safety evaluation.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. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [History and trends of robot-assisted spine surgery].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lu-Ping ZhouDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Zhi-Gang ZhangDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Dui LiDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Shu FangSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Rui ShengChaohu Clinical Medical College, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Ren-Jie ZhangDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Cai-Liang ShenDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.

Funding

National College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program 202210366032National Key Research and Development Plan Project 2018YFC0114708
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRobot-assisted (RA) techniques have been widely investigated in thoracolumbar spine surgery. However, the application of RA methods on cervical spine surgery is rare due to the complex morphology of cervical vertebrae and catastrophic complications. Thus, the feasibility and safety of RA cervical screw placement remain controversial. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RA screw placement on cervical spine surgery.

methodsA comprehensive search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase Database, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, and Wanfang Database was performed to select potential eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparative cohort studies, and case series reporting the accuracy of cervical screw placement were included. The Cochrane risk of bias criteria and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria were utilized to rate the risk of bias of the included literatures. The primary outcome was the rate of cervical screw placement accuracy with robotic guidance; subgroup analyses based on the screw type and insertion segments were also performed.

resultsOne RCT, 3 comparative cohort studies, and 3 case series consisting of 160 patients and 719 cervical screws were included in this meta-analysis. The combined outcomes indicated that the rates of optimal and clinically acceptable cervical screw placement accuracy under robotic guidance were 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.1%-91.4%; p = 0.073; I2 = 47.941%) and 98.4% (95% CI, 96.8%-99.5%; p = 0.167; I2 = 35.954%). The subgroup analyses showed that the rate of optimal pedicle screw placement accuracy was 88.2% (95% CI, 83.1%-92.6%; p = 0.057; I2 = 53.305%); the rates of optimal screw placement accuracy on C1, C2, and subaxial segments were 96.2% (95% CI, 80.5%-100.0%; p = 0.167; I2 = 44.134X%), 89.7% (95% CI, 80.6%-96.6%; p = 0.370; I2 = 0.000X%), and 82.6% (95% CI, 70.9%-91.9%; p = 0.057; I2 = 65.127X%;), respectively.

conclusionRA techniques were associated with high rates of optimal and clinically acceptable screw positions. RA cervical screw placement is accurate, safe, and feasible in cervical spine surgery with promising clinical potential.

Indexed as

AccuracyCervical vertebraeMeta-analysisRobotSpinal surgery

Identifiers

PMID37016881
PMCPMC10080448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.