SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Navigation-assisted vs robot -assisted unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective comparative study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026Article
- Application of a posture-sensing method combined with blind guidewire probing in percutaneous pedicle screw placement for single-level thoracolumbar compression fractures: a retrospective comparative study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Global research hotspots and emerging trends in orthopedic robotic surgery: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in spinal surgery: an updated systematic umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis of comparisons against freehand and navigation-guided techniques.EFORT open reviews · 2026Article
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
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the differences in efficacy and safety between robotic navigated pedicle screw insertion and conventional free-hand techniques in the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Utilizing a predefined search strategy, we systematically searched four major biomedical databases-PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase-up to January 27, 2025. After rigorous screening, six eligible clinical studies (comprising prospective cohort studies and retrospective analyses) involving 260 patients in total were incorporated into the quantitative synthesis. The primary outcomes measured included screw placement accuracy, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the incidence of complications. The results revealed that robot-assisted pedicle screw placement significantly outperformed traditional manual placement regarding screw placement accuracy, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and VAS score (P < 0.05). However, robot-assisted surgery was linked to a notably longer surgical duration compared to manual methods (WMD > 0, P < 0.05). To summarize, robot-assisted pedicle screw placement demonstrates significant advantages over traditional manual placement in the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis, with its safety and efficacy further validated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40638017What 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.