ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Risk factors of inaccurate screw placement in robotic spine surgeries: why do robots make error and how to avoid them?
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.
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.
- Robot-assisted surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases: a disease-specific bibliometric and knowledge-mapping analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Global research hotspots and emerging trends in orthopedic robotic surgery: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Association of supine apical vertebral rotation with three-dimensional deformity and global spinal alignment in adult degenerative scoliosis: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a new robotic spinal surgical system for K-wire placement characterized by tracker registration and lateral force sensing.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
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
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
Identifiers
41076469What 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.