SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2024
Accuracy and clinical characteristics of robot-assisted cervical spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Woodpecker variable-speed drilling protocol for robot-assisted subaxial cervical pedicle screw placement: technique and a consecutive series of 1027 screws.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Orthopedic Biomaterials in the Clinical Reconstruction of Osteoporotic Atlantoaxial Injuries: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Extended uses of robots in spine surgery beyond thoracolumbar pedicle screws: A narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- 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 · 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
- Applications of robotic technology in orthopaedic surgery: A technology review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Minimally Invasive Robotic Approach to Treating Cement Leakage Into the Psoas: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
- Global research trends in robot-assisted spinal surgery: a visualized bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Accuracy of Navigated High-Speed Drill-Assisted Cervical and Upper Thoracic Pedicle Screw Placement-A Single Center Experience with 1112 Pedicle Screws.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.