Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38613575›Full record

SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2024

Accuracy and clinical characteristics of robot-assisted cervical spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jiayuan Wu, Mingxing Fan, Da He, Yi Wei, Fangfang Duan, Xieyuan Jiang, Wei Tian

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Letter to the editor concerning " 5G-Enabled remote Robotic-Assisted percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in single thoracolumbar fractures: initial clinical feasibility and safety evaluation " by L. Zhou, et al. (Eur spine J [2025]: doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-09478-5).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
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jiayuan WuSpine Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100035, China.
Mingxing FanSpine Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100035, China.
Da HeSpine Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100035, China. hedamd@vip.163.com.
Yi WeiSpine Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100035, China.
Fangfang DuanEpidemiological Research Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100035, China.
Xieyuan JiangTrauma Orthopedics, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100035, China.
Wei TianSpine Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100035, China. tianwei_spine@sina.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1067-600X
Capital Medical University · CN

Funding

the Beijing JST Research Funding 2023OSR-GCZX202202the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences 2021-I2M-5-007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the accuracy and feasibility of robot-assisted cervical screw placement and factors that may affect the accuracy.

methodsA comprehensive search was made on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang Med for the selection of potential eligible literature. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of the relative risk (RR) or standardized mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses of the accuracy of screw placement at different cervical segments and with different screw placement approaches were performed. A comparison was made between robotic navigation and conventional freehand cervical screw placement.

resultsSix comparative cohort studies and five case series studies with 337 patients and 1342 cervical screws were included in this study. The perfect accuracy was 86% (95% CI, 82-89%) and the clinically acceptable rate was 98% (95% CI, 95-99%) in robot-assisted cervical screw placement. The perfect accuracy of robot-assisted C1 lateral mass screw placement was the highest (96%), followed by C6-7 pedicle screw placement (93%) and C2 pedicle screw placement (86%), and the lowest was C3-5 pedicle screw placement (75%). The open approach had a higher perfect accuracy than the percutaneous/intermuscular approach (91% vs 83%). Compared with conventional freehand cervical screw placement, robot-assisted cervical screw placement had a higher accuracy, a lower incidence of perioperative complications, and less intraoperative blood loss.

conclusionWith good collaboration between the operator and the robot, robot-assisted cervical screw placement is accurate and feasible. Robot-assisted cervical screw placement has a promising prospect.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraeRobotic Surgical ProceduresBone ScrewsHumansPedicle ScrewsSpinal FusionTreatment OutcomeAccuracyCervical spine surgeryConventional freehandMeta-analysisRobot-assisted

Identifiers

PMID38613575
OpenAlexW4394785482

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.