SynthesisBMC surgery2025
Minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and future directions.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 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.
- Review
- Extended uses of robots in spine surgery beyond thoracolumbar pedicle screws: A narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Global research trends in robot-assisted spinal surgery: a visualized bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- An ingenious 3D-printed navigating template for accurate screw placement in lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 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
introductionAnterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) is a commonly performed spine surgery procedure used to treat lumbar conditions such as degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal deformities. Traditionally, it has been performed using open and mini-open surgical techniques. Recently, however, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted ALIF have gained attention for their potential benefits, including shorter recovery times, fewer complications, and improved patient outcomes. However, the safety, effectiveness, and long-term outcomes of these newer techniques remain to be fully compared to conventional methods.
methodsThe systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on laparoscopic and robotic approaches to the anterior spine, with a focus on ALIF. Article selection and data extraction were independently conducted by two reviewers. Studies involving animal models, non-ALIF robotic techniques, or non-English publications were excluded.
resultsA total of 650 articles were initially identified. After screening, a full-text review was conducted on 80 articles, of which 48 studies met the inclusion criteria: 42 focused on laparoscopic ALIF (L-ALIF) and 6 on robotic-assisted ALIF (R-ALIF). Laparoscopic ALIF achieved similar outcomes to mini-open methods, offering limited consistent benefits while presenting challenges such as a steep learning curve and a higher risk of retrograde ejaculation. Data on robotic-assisted ALIF, though limited, indicated improved precision and a reduced rate of intraoperative complications. However, high costs, logistical challenges, and the lack of substantial long-term outcome data remain significant barriers to the broader adoption of this technique in spine surgery.
conclusionL-ALIF and R-ALIF present promising minimally invasive alternatives to mini-open ALIF approaches. L-ALIF yields outcomes similar to mini-open techniques, though its technical demands warrant careful consideration. R-ALIF shows potential for improved precision and reduced complications, but logistical and financial constraints limit its wider adoption. Future studies should focus on multicenter prospective trials, alongside efforts to reduce costs and enhance training, to refine the role of these techniques in optimizing patient outcomes.
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.