Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37707742›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023

100 Complex posterior spinal fusion cases performed with robotic instrumentation.

Brian McCormick, Paul L Asdourian, Douglass C Johnson, Bradley W Moatz, Grant T Duvall, Mosope T Soda, Anna R Beaufort, Liana G Chotikul, Paul C McAfee

Abstract readCase Reports
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. What's new in the pediatric spine?Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. [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
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Brian McCormickMedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. brian.p.mccormick1@gmail.com.
Paul L AsdourianMedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Douglass C JohnsonMedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Bradley W MoatzMedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Grant T DuvallMedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Mosope T SodaMedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Anna R BeaufortMedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Liana G ChotikulMedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Paul C McAfeeMedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic navigation has been shown to increase precision, accuracy, and safety during spinal reconstructive procedures. There is a paucity of literature describing the best techniques for robotic-assisted spine surgery for complex, multilevel cases or in cases of significant deformity correction. We present a case series of 100 consecutive multilevel posterior spinal fusion procedures performed for multilevel spinal disease and/or deformity correction. 100 consecutive posterior spinal fusions were performed for multilevel disease and/or deformity correction utilizing robotic-assisted placement of pedicle screws. The primary outcome was surgery-related failure, which was defined as hardware breakage or reoperation with removal of hardware. A total of 100 consecutive patients met inclusion criteria. Among cases included, 31 were revision surgeries with existing hardware in place. The mean number of levels fused was 5.6, the mean operative time was 303 min, and the mean estimated blood loss was 469 mL. 28 cases included robotic-assisted placement of S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws. In total, 1043 pedicle screws and 53 S2AI screws were placed with robotic-assistance. The failure rate using survivorship analysis was 18/1043 (1.7%) and the failure rate of S2AI screws using survivorship analysis was 3/53 (5.7%). Four patients developed postoperative wound infections requiring irrigation and debridement procedures. None of the 1043 pedicle screws nor the 53 S2AI screws required reoperation due to malpositioning or suboptimal placement. This case series of 100 multilevel posterior spinal fusion procedures demonstrates promising results with low failure rates. With 1043 pedicle screws and 53 S2AI screws, we report low failure rates of 1.7% and 5.7%, respectively with zero cases of screw malpositioning. Robotic screw placement allows for accurate screw placement with no increased rate of postoperative infection compared to historical controls. Level of evidence: IV, Retrospective review.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionHumansRetrospective StudiesSpinePosterior spinal fusionRobotic navigationSpinal deformity

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.