ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic-assisted kyphoplasty demonstrates superior efficacy, safety, and procedural efficiency compared to fluoroscopy-guided techniques: a retrospective analysis of 240 patients.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictors of delayed union after surgical treatment in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are a significant health burden with increasing prevalence in the aging population. This study compares robotic-assisted kyphoplasty (RK) with conventional fluoroscopy-guided kyphoplasty (FK) for the treatment of OVCFs. A single-center retrospective study analyzed 240 patients (120 in each group) who underwent kyphoplasty for OVCFs between January 2020 and December 2022 under general anesthesia. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological outcomes included vertebral height restoration and kyphotic angle correction. Procedural parameters including radiation exposure, procedural time, and complications were analyzed. Correlation analysis was performed to assess the impact of vertebral anatomy complexity on procedural outcomes. Both groups demonstrated significant clinical and radiological improvements with comparable pain relief and functional outcomes. The RK group showed superior vertebral height restoration (68.00% vs. 64.38%, p = 0.004) and significantly lower cement leakage rates (5.8% vs. 19.2%, p = 0.002) compared to the FK group. Radiation exposure was significantly lower in the RK group (18.76 mGy vs. 22.69 mGy, p < 0.00001). Total procedure time was significantly shorter in the RK group (50.91 min vs. 86.40 min, p < 0.00001). Correlation analysis revealed that thoracic level complexity affected both techniques similarly, with significant correlations between thoracic levels and increased radiation exposure and procedural time in both groups. However, the robotic group maintained superior absolute performance regardless of anatomical complexity. Robotic-assisted kyphoplasty provides superior safety profiles with reduced cement leakage and radiation exposure, better vertebral height restoration, and shorter procedural times compared to fluoroscopy-guided techniques. Importantly, these advantages persist across different levels of anatomical complexity, suggesting that robotic assistance offers consistently superior performance regardless of case difficulty. These findings support the adoption of robotic-assisted techniques for treating OVCFs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40608146What 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.