SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic-assisted spine surgery: hype or game-changer?
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.
- Multidimensional Management of Degenerative Scoliosis: A Comprehensive Narrative Review Integrating Diagnostic Assessment, Surgical Decision-Making, and Patient-Centered Outcomes.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Review
- From Clinical Technique to Interprofessional Implementation and Intelligent Integration: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Interdisciplinary Expansion of Robot-Assisted Spine Surgery.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Article
- Robotically equipped 3D hybrid operating room in spine and trauma surgery - updated experience in 359 patients and 2080 screws.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted spine surgery (RASS) has emerged as a potential advancement in spinal instrumentation, yet its comparative efficacy remains debated. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and operative efficiency of RASS versus conventional freehand/navigation techniques, assess the impact of surgeon experience and robotic systems, and analyze secondary outcomes, such as complications and revision rates. A systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines, incorporating 13 studies (5 RCTs, 3 prospective trials, 5 retrospective analyses) from PubMed, Embase, and other databases. Eligibility criteria included adult patients undergoing thoracolumbar/cervical pedicle screw placement. Primary outcomes were screw accuracy (Gertzbein-Robbins Grade A) and breach rates (> 2 mm); secondary outcomes included neurological injury, infection, revision surgery, and operative time. Data were analyzed using fixed/random-effects models, with subgroup analyses by pathology, robotic system, and surgeon experience. RASS demonstrated significantly higher perfect screw accuracy (94.2% vs. 85.1%; OR 2.41, p < 0.001) and lower breach rates (3.8% vs. 11.4%; OR 0.32, p < 0.001). Neurological injuries (1.9% vs. 4.3%; OR 0.45, p = 0.001) and revision surgeries (3.1% vs. 5.2%; OR 0.59, p = 0.02) were reduced, though operative times were longer (+ 12.4 min, p = 0.001). SSI rates showed a non-significant trend favouring RASS (2.5% vs. 3.7%; OR 0.67, p = 0.09). Subgroup analyses revealed greater benefits in deformity cases (OR 2.67), with Mazor systems (OR 2.55) and experienced surgeons (OR 4.55 after > 30 cases) achieving the best outcomes. RASS significantly improves screw accuracy and reduces complications compared to conventional techniques, particularly in complex cases and with surgeon proficiency. While operative times are marginally longer, the clinical benefits support its adoption, pending cost-effectiveness evaluations and individualized training programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40875149What 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.