ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
Robot-Assisted vs Fluoroscopy-Guided Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Comparative Study.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Computer-assisted spine surgery : Current status and future perspectives].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Sleep quality after lumbar surgery for degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis with meta-regression.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 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 Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) requires percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws under fluoroscopic guidance, which can lead to inaccurate screw placement and repeated fluoroscopy. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted vs fluoroscopy-guided MIS-TLIF. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 80 patients were included in this study, among whom 40 received robot-assisted MIS-TLIF (RA group) and 40 received fluoroscope-guided MIS-TLIF (FG group) between January 2020 and January 2022. The visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated before surgery, 3 days after surgery, and at the final follow-up. The operation time, blood loss, radiation exposure time, hospital stay, pedicle screw placement, facet joint violation (FJV), fusion status, and complications were also recorded. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups regarding operation time, radiation exposure time, blood loss, and intervertebral fusion rate. The hospital stay in the robot group was shorter than that in the FG group. Both groups showed reduced VAS and ODI scores at each time point after surgery compared to preoperatively. The VAS back pain score in the RA group was lower than that in the FG group at 3 days postoperatively. The RA group demonstrated more accurate screw placement compared to the FG group, whereas the FG group exhibited a significantly higher FJV rate. The 2 groups had similar complications. CONCLUSIONS Robot-assisted MIS-TLIF enhances the precision of pedicle screw placement, significantly reduces early postoperative pain, shortens hospital stays, and minimizes FJV.
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.