ArticleSpine deformity2025
Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement improves accuracy, precision, and breach rates compared with freehand and image-guided navigation techniques: a cadaveric study.
Article in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Beyond the curve: the mental health burden of Scheuermann's kyphosis.Spine deformity · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designCadaveric study. PURPOSE: Compare the accuracy and precision of robotic navigation (RAN), freehand (FH) and freehand navigation (NAV) techniques for pedicle screw placement.
methodsThree cadavers were assigned to the FH, NAV, and RAN methods. Cadavers were CT scanned preoperatively, then underwent bilateral T1-L5 screw planning. RAN and NAV screws were placed by one surgeon, while the FH screws were placed by a second surgeon. Automated computer vision techniques were used to assess the tip, tail, and mid-pedicle screw positions compared to the preoperative plan along three axes on postoperative CT scans. Systematic error, precision, and accuracy were defined by signed mean error, two standard deviations (SDs), and mean absolute error (MAE), respectively. A factorial ANOVA with pairwise comparisons was used with post-hoc t-tests using Bonferroni corrections.
resultsEighty-seven screws were placed in three cadavers (24 RAN, 29 NAV, 34 FH). Fifteen screws were skipped due to registration difficulties (10 RAN, 5 NAV). RAN outperformed NAV and FH in regard to MAE angular deviation from planned screw trajectory (p < 0.001), the mid-pedicle in the superior-inferior direction (p = 0.002), and at the screw tip in all planes (p < 0.05), with a maximum error of 1.29 mm and 1.98° (vs. 2.29 mm and 5.23° for NAV and 5.67 mm and 11.18° for FH). No RAN screws had medial breach (1 (3.4%) for NAV; 4 (11.8%) for FH).
conclusionsIn our study, RAN demonstrated the best accuracy and precision in the majority of measured parameters, when compared to FH and NAV techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40691422What 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.