ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
Robot-Assisted Positioning for Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
objectiveDuring percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID), a range of technologies including medical robotics, visual navigation, and spatial registration have been proposed to expand the application scope and success rate of minimally invasive surgery. The use of robotic technology in surgery is conducive to improving accuracy and reducing risk. This study aims to introduce a precise and efficient targeting method tailored for robot-assisted positioning under C-arm fluoroscopy inPEID.
methodsThis study conducted a retrospective analysis of 107 patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) who underwent surgical treatment at our hospital from February 2023 to February 2024 (average age: 43.3 ± 13.3 years; 61 males and 43 females). The method entails constructing a specialized end-effector capable of simultaneous fluoroscopy calibration and robot-to-image-space registration. The average time of the surgical procedure and the average number of fluoroscopy exposures were collected. Preoperative and postoperative follow-up data were collected, including assessment scores from the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Paired t-tests were employed to compare differences in each clinical outcome between the preoperative and follow-up time.
resultsThese techniques effectively reduce both radiation exposure and operation time. Clinical data reveals that the average time for robot-assisted positioning stands at 2.5 ± 0.7 min, with anteroposterior and lateral radiographs demonstrating accuracies of 2.4 ± 2.8 mm and 3.1 ± 3.7 mm, respectively, during robot-assisted positioning. Postoperative VAS scores for back pain and leg pain were significantly lower than preoperative scores (1.2 ± 1.8 vs. 4.1 ± 2.3, 0.9 ± 2.0 vs. 5.9 ± 1.8; p < 0.05, p < 0.05, respectively). Postoperative JOA scores were significantly higher than preoperative scores (26.1 ± 3.5 vs. 14.5 ± 4.9; p < 0.05).
conclusionsThrough the evaluation of the system in robot-assisted positioning during PEID, this study substantiates the accuracy and reliability of the proposed method in clinical applications.
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.