ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Emerging Technologies within Spine Surgery.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Reliability of Biomechanical Mensuration Methods of the Sagittal Cervical Spine in Radiography Used in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- From Concept to Clinic: Pre-Clinical Testing and Regulatory Considerations in Spine Implant Development.JOR spine · 2026Review
- Osteointegration and Fusion After TLIF: Trabecular Titanium Cage with SVF-Hydrogel Compared with PEEK Cage.Orthopedic reviews · 2026Article
- Surgical and non-surgical management of spondylolisthesis: a comprehensive review.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Review
- Does Robotic Spine Surgery Add Value to Surgical Practice over Navigation-Based Systems? A Study on Operating Room Efficiency.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Correction: Foley et al. Emerging Technologies within Spine Surgery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New innovations within spine surgery continue to propel the field forward. These technologies improve surgeons' understanding of their patients and allow them to optimize treatment planning both in the operating room and clinic. Additionally, changes in the implants and surgeon practice habits continue to evolve secondary to emerging biomaterials and device design. With ongoing advancements, patients can expect enhanced preoperative decision-making, improved patient outcomes, and better intraoperative execution. Additionally, these changes may decrease many of the most common complications following spine surgery in order to reduce morbidity, mortality, and the need for reoperation. This article reviews some of these technological advancements and how they are projected to impact the field. As the field continues to advance, it is vital that practitioners remain knowledgeable of these changes in order to provide the most effective treatment possible.
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.