ArticleAsian spine journal2024
Robotic spine systems: overcoming surgeon experience in pedicle screw accuracy: a prospective study.
Article in Asian spine journal, 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.
- Comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy between AUSS-TLIF combined with tianJi ROBOT-assisted PPSF and conventional TLIF in the treatment of Single-Stage lumbar spondylolisthesis.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
- Robotic versus intraoperative image-based navigated thoraco-lumbar pedicle screw fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted anterior and posterior cervical spine surgeries.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Article
- Augmented Reality Navigation for Pedicle Screw Fixation: Technical Accuracy and Feasibility in a Human Cadaveric Study.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Article
- Augmented reality-guided pedicle screw fixation: an experimental study.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Risk factors of inaccurate screw placement in robotic spine surgeries: why do robots make error and how to avoid them?Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluating the feasibility of pinless robot-assisted spine surgery: a prospective study of 750 cases and 3,924 screws in the thoracolumbar spine in India.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Pedicle Screw Position on Computerized Tomography Using Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Software.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Evaluating accuracy in robotic-assisted thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement: Insights from a single-center study of 410 patients.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designProspective single-center study. PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of pedicle screws placed by freehand and under fluoroscopy and robotic assistance with intraoperative image acquisition. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Pedicle screws are the most commonly used spinal anchors owing to their ability to stabilize all three spinal columns. Various techniques such as freehand, fluoroscopy-assisted, and navigation-assisted pedicle screw placements have been used with varying degrees of accuracy. Most studies on robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement have utilized preoperatively acquired computed tomography scans. To our knowledge, this is the only study in the literature that compared freehand with fluoroscopy-guided and robotic-assisted pedicle screw insertion with freehand and fluoroscopy.
methodsIn this prospective study, a total of 1,120 pedicle screws were placed in the freehand group (n=175), 1,250 in the fluoroscopyassisted group (n=172), and 1,225 in the robotic-assisted group (n=180). Surgical parameters and screw accuracy were analyzed between the three groups. The preoperative plan overlapped with the postoperative O-arm scan to determine if the screws were executed as planned.
resultsThe frequency of clinically acceptable screw placement (Gertzbein-Robbins grades A and B) in the freehand, fluoroscopy-assisted, and robotic-assisted groups were 97.7%, 98.6%, and 99.34%, respectively. With robotic assistance, an experience-neutralizing effect implied that surgeons with varying levels of experience achieved comparable pedicle screw accuracy, blood loss, O-arm time, robot time, and time per screw. No significant difference in these parameters was found between surgeries commencing before and after 2 PM. No significant differences were noted between the planned and executed screw trajectories in the robotic-assisted group irrespective of surgical experience.
conclusionsThe third-generation robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement system used in conjunction with intraoperative threedimensional O-arm imaging consistently demonstrates safe and accurate screw placement with an experience-neutralizing effect.
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.