ArticleScientific reports2024
Precision and effort in robot-assisted placement of pedicle screws compared to standard surgical navigation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Clinical Technique to Interprofessional Implementation and Intelligent Integration: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Interdisciplinary Expansion of Robot-Assisted Spine Surgery.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Article
- Advances in internal fixation methods for intertrochanteric femoral fractures: A narrative review.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Power-drill fluoroscopy-controlled technique as an alternative to navigation-assisted pedicle screw placement: A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Transforming spinal surgery: five years of navigation, workflow optimization and clinical impact.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
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
Aim was to compare image-guided navigation with a robot-assisted solution for performing MISS regarding precision, required time and subjective aspects. 90 pedicles were instrumented on two torsos, half with navigation, half robot-assisted. Precision analysis between both solutions didn't show a significant difference. Time measurement showed a significantly longer duration per wire for the robot-arm on the first torso and a not significant longer duration on the second torso, where a significant reduction in the mean duration was shown. There was no significant difference in the subjective impressions comparing navigation and robot except the possibility to change the procedure. Precision of both methods is suitable for clinical use. A time advantage using the robot-arm couldn't be demonstrated in the present study. A significant learning curve was shown, so a reduction in the longer duration on the robot can be expected. Further studies in clinical use are necessary.
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.