Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38972955›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024

The contribution of E3D imaging integrated with robotic navigation: analysis of the first 80 consecutive posterior spinal fusion cases.

Jeffrey J Stewart, Paul Asdourian, Bradley Moatz, Mosope Soda, Mesfin Lemma, Bryan W Cunningham, Daina M Brooks, Paul C McAfee

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Jeffrey J StewartDepartment of Neurosurgery, Georgetown School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Paul AsdourianDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, 3333 North Calvert Street, Suite 400, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Bradley MoatzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, 3333 North Calvert Street, Suite 400, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Mosope SodaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, 3333 North Calvert Street, Suite 400, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Mesfin LemmaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, 3333 North Calvert Street, Suite 400, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Bryan W CunninghamDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, 3333 North Calvert Street, Suite 400, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Daina M BrooksDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, 3333 North Calvert Street, Suite 400, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Paul C McAfeeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, 3333 North Calvert Street, Suite 400, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA. Mack8132@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3033-5464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eighty consecutive complex spinal robotic cases utilizing intraoperative 3D CT imaging (E3D, Group 2) were compared to 80 age-matched controls using the Excelsius robot alone with C-arm Fluoroscopic registration (Robot Only, Group 1). The demographics between the two groups were similar-severity of deformity, ASA Score for general anesthesia, patient age, gender, number of spinal levels instrumented, number of patients with prior spinal surgery, and amount of neurologic compression. The intraoperative CT scanning added several objective factors improving patient safety. There were significantly fewer complications in the E3D group with only 3 of 80 (4%) patients requiring a return to the operating room compared to 11 of 80 (14%) patients in the Robot Only Group requiring repeat surgery for implant related problems (Chi squared analysis = 5.00, p = 0.025). There was a significant reduction the amount of fluoroscopy time in the E3D Group (36 s, range 4-102 s) compared to Robot only group (51 s, range 15-160 s) (p = 0.0001). There was also shorter mean operative time in the E3D group (257 ± 59.5 min) compared to the robot only group (306 ± 73.8 min) due to much faster registration time (45 s). A longer registration time was required in the Robot only group to register each vertebral level with AP and Lateral fluoroscopy shots. The estimated blood loss was also significantly lower in Group 2 (mean 345 ± 225 ml) vs Group 1 (474 ± 397 ml) (p = 0.012). The mean hospital length of stay was also significantly shorter for Group 2 (3.77 ± 1.86 days) compared to Group 1 (5.16 ± 3.40) (p = 0.022). There was no significant difference in the number of interbody implants nor corrective osteotomies in both groups-Robot only 52 cases vs. 42 cases in E3D group.Level of evidence: IV, Retrospective review.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalOperative TimeRobotic Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFluoroscopyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesSurgery, Computer-AssistedIntraoperative CT registrationPosterior spinal fusionRobotic navigationSpinal deformity

Identifiers

PMID38972955
PMCPMC11228004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.