ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted technology in severe complex and non-severe spinal deformity correction: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurgical correction of severe complex spinal deformities (SCD) poses significant technical challenges and carries a high risk of neurological complications. In recent years, robot-assisted (RA) technology has been increasingly adopted in spinal surgery, with theoretical advantages in enhancing surgical precision and safety, particularly in anatomically complex cases. However, its clinical outcomes in the correction of SCD have not been thoroughly evaluated.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent RA scoliosis correction surgery between January 2021 and April 2024. Patients were classified into non-severe deformities (NSD) and SCD groups based on the criteria of Cobb angle > 80°, flexibility < 25%, or focal kyphosis > 90°. Demographic data, surgical parameters, and imaging outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups. Primary outcomes included pedicle screw placement accuracy, major curve correction rates, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and postoperative complications. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 38 patients were included (NSD: 21, SCD: 17). No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of age, sex distribution, BMI, or major curve region (p > 0.05). The SCD group exhibited significantly greater preoperative Cobb angles (93.69° ± 23.20° vs. 51.05° ± 14.33°, p < 0.0001) and kyphosis angles (102.65° ± 36.52° vs. 37.77° ± 21.57°, p < 0.0001) compared to the NSD group. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of screws placed (18.35 ± 7.00 vs. 16.86 ± 7.77, p = 0.5414), operative time (277.35 ± 68.81 min vs. 247.00 ± 80.40 min, p = 0.2256), intraoperative blood loss (379.41 ± 241.78 ml vs. 319.05 ± 197.15 ml, p = 0.4019), or transfusion rates (23.53% vs. 23.81%, p = 1.0000). However, the SCD group had significantly longer hospital stays compared to the NSD group (27.65 ± 9.64 days vs. 21.19 ± 7.24 days, p = 0.0239). The complication rates were similar between the two groups (5.88% vs. 4.76%, p = 1.0000). Although the perfect screw placement rate in the SCD group was slightly lower than in the NSD group, the difference was not statistically significant (90.60% ± 4.90% vs. 92.18% ± 6.29%, p = 0.3997). Major curve correction rates also showed no significant difference between the groups (66.34% ± 19.91% vs. 71.05% ± 16.08%, p = 0.5134).
conclusionThis study demonstrates that RA technology achieves comparable pedicle screw placement accuracy and major curve correction rates in SCD patients relative to NSD patients, with no significant increase in complication rates. However, SCD patients may require longer hospital stays. These findings suggest that RA technology is a safe and effective strategy for SCD management, though broader implementation requires validation through larger prospective trials. Further large-scale, prospective studies are warranted to validate these results.
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.