ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2024
Challenges in contemporary spinal robotics: encouraging spine surgeons to drive transformative changes in the development of future robotic platforms.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shaping the modern spine surgeon: core competencies for a digital era.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Lumbar interbody fusion via anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review for surgeons.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Review
- Spine endoscopy in transition: the case for mastery of both uniportal and biportal techniques.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Robotic spine surgery compared with fluoroscopic-assisted surgery: advantages, disadvantages, future perspectives.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Contemporary innovations in spine surgery: balancing technological advancement and cost-effectiveness.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
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
The field of spinal robotics has witnessed considerable advances, which have primarily focused on enhancing pedicle screw placement. This article critically evaluates the current direction of spinal robotics development, raising concerns about the disproportionate emphasis on pedicle screw placement when existing techniques already yield commendable results. Discussions on various parameters, including quality, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility, highlight the need for a broader perspective in the development of robotics for spinal surgery. Comparative analyses reveal that navigation systems offer cost-effective and time-efficient alternatives to robotics, with similar accuracy levels. Patient demand for robotic interventions is influenced by perceived superiority, warranting careful consideration of public sentiment. This article also underscores the need for future spine surgeons to maintain proficiency in traditional techniques. The influence of industry and key opinion leaders in steering the focus toward pedicle screw placement is discussed, emphasizing the need for a more holistic approach. Accessibility issues and legal considerations in the evolving field of spinal robotics are addressed, and the potential for robotics to enhance various aspects of surgical procedures beyond pedicle screw placement is explored. In conclusion, we advocate for a shift in focus in spinal robotics, emphasizing the untapped potential to streamline common surgical procedures (such as discectomy, laminectomy, and endoscopy), enhance precision, and improve patient outcomes in areas beyond pedicle screw placement. Future advances in spinal robotics have the potential to transform the surgical landscape, benefitting all stakeholders, including patients, surgeons, and hospitals.
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.