SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- Robot-assisted versus traditional surgery in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robot-assisted surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases: a disease-specific bibliometric and knowledge-mapping analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- 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 versus conventional single-level lumbar fusion in frail older adults: analysis of the National Readmission Database, 2016-2020.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025Article
- Robot-Assisted vs Fluoroscopy-Guided Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Comparative Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of RA FE-TLIF Compared to FE-TLIF in Patients With Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- [Effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive and open freehand transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and the influence on adjacent segment degeneration].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Status and Promising Potential of Robotic Spinal Surgery Systems.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted (RA) technology has been widely used in spine surgery. This analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of RA minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and fluoroscopy-assisted (FA) MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases (DLSD). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched, and the outcomes included surgical parameters [operation time, blood loss, number of fluoroscopic, accuracy of pedicle screw position, superior facet joint violation (FJV)], and clinical indexes (Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, complications). Eleven articles involving 1066 patients were included. RA group produced better results than the FA group in operation time (WMD = - 6.59; 95% CI - 12.79 to - 0.40; P = 0.04), blood loss (WMD = - 34.81; 95% CI - 50.55 to - 19.08; P < 0.0001), number of fluoroscopic (WMD = - 18.24; 95% CI - 30.63 to - 5.85; P = 0.004), accuracy of pedicle screw position: Grade A (OR = 3.16; 95% CI 2.36-4.23; P < 0.00001), Grade B (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28-0.54; P < 0.00001), Grade C (OR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.54; P = 0.0002), and Grade D (OR = 0.17; 95% CI 0.03-0.98; P = 0.05), FJV: Grade 0 (OR = 3.27; 95% CI 1.34-8.02; P = 0.010), Grade 1 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.38; P < 0.00001), Grade 2 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.51; P = 0.0002), and Grade 3 (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.07-0.93; P = 0.04). But no significant differences in VAS score, ODI, JOA score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, and complications. These results demonstrate a significant improvement in the intraoperative course of the RA technique. However, RA-MIS-TLIF has not yet demonstrated significant advantages in terms of postoperative symptom relief and functional improvement. Future research and clinical practice should further explore the efficacy of this technique to optimize outcomes and quality of life for patients with DLSD. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023454405).
Indexed as
Identifiers
38231423What 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.