ReviewCureus2024
Robotic-Assisted Versus Fluoroscopic-Guided Surgery on the Accuracy of Spine Pedicle Screw Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Level-specific accuracy of robotic-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted lumbar pedicle screw placement: a retrospective comparative cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted percutaneous iliac fixation: Outcomes, history, and review.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- AI-driven tissue discrimination sensing methods for robot-assisted spine surgery: a state-of-the-art review.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 · 2026Review
- 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 spine surgery compared with fluoroscopic-assisted surgery: advantages, disadvantages, future perspectives.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- [Robotically assisted and minimally invasive pedicle screw placement at the lumbar spine].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- [Robotically assisted placement of a pubic ramus screw and an SI-S1 screw].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Does Robotic Spine Surgery Add Value to Surgical Practice over Navigation-Based Systems? A Study on Operating Room Efficiency.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Hybrid-3D robotic suite in spine and trauma surgery - experiences in 210 patients.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal fusion is a common method by which surgeons decrease instability and deformity of the spinal segment targeted. Pedicle screws are vital tools in fusion surgeries and advancements in technology have introduced several modalities of screw placement. Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in robot-assisted (RA) versus fluoroscopic-guided (FG) techniques. The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed from January 2007 through to August 8, 2022, to identify relevant studies. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement was determined using the Gertzbein-Robbins (GR) classification system. Facet joint violation (FJV), total case radiation dosage, total case radiation time, total operating room (OR) time, and total case blood loss were collected. Twenty-one articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Successful screw accuracy (GR Grade A or B) was found to be 1.02 (95% confidence interval: 1.01 - 1.04) times more likely with the RA technique. In defining accuracy solely based on the GR Grade A criteria, screws placed with RA were 1.10 (95% confidence interval: 1.06 - 1.15) times more likely to be accurate. There was no significant difference between the two techniques with respect to blood loss (Hedges' g: 1.16, 95% confidence interval: -0.75 to 3.06) or case radiation time (Hedges' g: -0.34, 95% CI: -1.22 to 0.53). FG techniques were associated with shorter operating room times (Hedges' g: -1.03, 95% confidence interval: -1.76 to -0.31), and higher case radiation dosage (Hedges' g: 1.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.11 to 2.10). This review suggests that RA may slightly increase pedicle screw accuracy and decrease per-case radiation dosage compared to FG techniques. However, total operating times for RA cases are greater than those for FG cases.
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.