ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Clinical outcomes of robot-assisted vs. conventional free-hand technique in spine surgery.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Cost-effectiveness and evidence gaps of advanced technologies in lumbar spine surgery: a scoping review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
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
Background: Robot-assisted surgery has been increasingly applied in spinal surgery in recent years, but the differences in efficacy compared to conventional free-hand surgery remain unclear. This study aims to evaluate the impact of these two surgical approaches on spinal surgery patients by analyzing baseline characteristics, surgical data, short-term postoperative outcomes, and long-term functional recovery and pain relief. Methods: This study first analyzed the differences in baseline characteristics and surgical data between the robot-assisted and conventional free-hand surgery groups, including age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, and alcohol consumption. Multivariate logistic regression was then used to explore the effects of baseline characteristics and surgical methods on short-term postoperative outcomes, such as complications, reoperations, fracture healing, and spinal alignment recovery. Finally, generalized estimating equations (GEE) were employed to assess the impact of surgical methods on long-term postoperative outcomes, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and pain scores. Results: Diabetes and hypertension significantly increased the risk of postoperative complications and reoperation, while robot-assisted surgery significantly reduced the incidence of complications and reoperation. In terms of spinal structural recovery after surgery, the robot-assisted surgery group showed better results. Long-term follow-up revealed that robot-assisted surgery significantly reduced ODI and pain scores, and over time, the robot-assisted group consistently demonstrated superior functional recovery and pain relief compared to the conventional surgery group. Conclusion: Robot-assisted surgery showed significant advantages in both short-term postoperative recovery and long-term functional improvement and pain relief. It outperformed conventional free-hand surgery in reducing complication rates, accelerating postoperative recovery, lowering reoperation rates, and promoting fracture healing and spinal alignment recovery.
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.