ArticleSpine deformity2025
Development of a classification system for potential sources of error in robotic-assisted spine surgery.
Article in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRobotic-assisted spine surgery (RASS) has increased in prevalence over recent years, and while much work has been done to analyze differences in outcomes when compared to the freehand technique, little has been done to characterize the potential pitfalls associated with using robotics. This study's goal was to leverage expert opinion to develop a classification system of potential sources of error that may be encountered when using robotics in spine surgery. This not only provides practitioners, particularly those in the early stages of robotic adoption, with insight into possible sources of error but also provides the community at large with a more standardized language through which to communicate.
methodsThe Delphi method, which is a validated system of developing consensus, was utilized. The method employed an iterative presentation of classification categories that were then edited, removed, or elaborated upon during several rounds of discussion. Voting took place to accept or reject the individual classification categories with consensus defined as ≥ 80% agreement.
resultsAfter a three-round iterative survey and video conference Delphi process, followed by an in-person meeting at the Safety in Spine Surgery Summit, consensus was achieved on a classification system that includes four key types of potential sources of error in RASS as well as a list of the most commonly identified sources within each category. Initial sources of error that were considered included: cannula skidding/skive, penetration, screw misplacement, registration failure, and frame shift. After completion of the Delphi process, the final classification included four major types of pitfalls including: Reference/Navigation, Patient Factors, Technique, and Equipment Factors (available at https://safetyinspinesurgery.com/ ).
conclusionThis work provides expert insight into potential sources of error in the setting of robotic spine surgery. The working group established four discrete categories while providing a standardized language to unify communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40167985What 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.