ReviewBrain & spine2025
Advancing spine surgery: Evaluating the potential for full robotic automation.
Review in Brain & spine, 2025. 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.
- Ethical universality in medicine: A critical rational bioethics beyond cultural relativism.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted spinal surgery: technological maturity, clinical evidence, and future directions.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Review
- Shaping the modern spine surgeon: core competencies for a digital era.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Management of Severe Rigid Scoliosis: Best practices and controversies.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The use of robotic systems in spine surgery is expanding, with growing interest in the potential for full automation. This review explores current robotic technologies, their limitations, and future automation possibilities, focusing on technical and practical aspects. Research question: What are the current capabilities and limitations of robotic systems in spine surgery, and how might advancements in tracking technologies facilitate a transition toward greater automation? Material and methods: A narrative review of literature on robotic spine surgery systems was conducted, analyzing benefits, accuracy, limitations, and innovations necessary for full automation. Focus was placed on trajectory-guiding technologies, such as optical tracking and alternative tracking methods. Results: Current robotic systems (e.g., Cirq®, Mazor X™, ExcelsiusGPS™) assist in trajectory guidance but lack autonomy. Optical tracking systems present challenges, such as obstruction vulnerability and inaccuracies in complex constructs. Conversely, encoder-based tracking demonstrated superior accuracy, offering a promising pathway toward increased automation. The potential advantages of robotics over conventional navigation, including their nature and clinical relevance, remain a topic of active discussion. However, the inherent complexity of spine surgery and the critical role of human decision-making remain substantial barriers. Discussion and conclusion: While full automation in robotic spine surgery is not yet attainable, advancements in tracking technologies point to a future of enhanced robot-surgeon collaboration, which could optimize clinical outcomes and improve procedural safety.
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.