Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41076469›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025

Risk factors of inaccurate screw placement in robotic spine surgeries: why do robots make error and how to avoid them?

S Vidyadhara, R Dinesh Iyer, Abhishek Soni, T Balamurugan, Dhiyanesh Krishnamurthy

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

S Vidyadhara *Manipal Institute of Robotic Spine Surgery, Manipal Comprehensive Spine Care Centre, Manipal Hospital, Old Airport Road, Bangalore, 560017, India. vidya007@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3135-7681
R Dinesh Iyer *Manipal Institute of Robotic Spine Surgery, Manipal Comprehensive Spine Care Centre, Manipal Hospital, Old Airport Road, Bangalore, 560017, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4918-1415
Abhishek SoniManipal Institute of Robotic Spine Surgery, Manipal Comprehensive Spine Care Centre, Manipal Hospital, Old Airport Road, Bangalore, 560017, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7830-2158
T BalamuruganManipal Institute of Robotic Spine Surgery, Manipal Comprehensive Spine Care Centre, Manipal Hospital, Old Airport Road, Bangalore, 560017, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8610-4414
Dhiyanesh KrishnamurthyManipal Institute of Robotic Spine Surgery, Manipal Comprehensive Spine Care Centre, Manipal Hospital, Old Airport Road, Bangalore, 560017, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3903-4311

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study design is retrospective study. Robotic spine surgery has evolved rapidly over the past two decades, with growing adoption. However, research on error sources in robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement remains scarce. This study investigates the incidence, risk factors, and intraoperative error types linked to screw malposition. We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent robotic-assisted thoracic and lumbar spine surgeries at our center since Oct 2023. The incidence of screw breaches, intraoperative errors, and risk factors, such as BMI, pathology, and surgical approach, were assessed. Screw malpositions were identified on postoperative O-arm scans and classified by error cause. Intraoperative revision protocols were documented. A total of 1060 patients (5644 pedicle screws) were included. Screw malposition occurred in 13 patients (1.2%) involving 22 screws (0.39%). The mean BMI of patients with malposition was 27.3 versus 26.5 overall. Among the 13 cases, 8 had lumbar degenerative pathology, 3 scoliosis, 1 high-grade listhesis, and 1 revision for proximal junctional failure. Skiving was the most frequent error (6 cases), followed by arm shift (4), patient movement (2), and registration error (1). Learning curve had a significant role with 12/22 screw malpositioning happening in the initial 50 robotic cases. No significant correlation was found between malposition and pathology type or surgical approach. Robotic systems improve pedicle screw accuracy but are not immune to errors. Skiving is the most common issue and can be minimized by selecting flat bony entry points and avoiding sloping surfaces. Other causes include arm shift, patient movement, and registration errors.

Indexed as

Intraoperative ComplicationsPedicle ScrewsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionAdolescentAdultAgedChildFemaleHumansIncidenceIntervertebral Disc DegenerationLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesArm shiftMazor XRegistration errorRobotic spine surgerySkiving

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.