ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2025
Robot-assisted
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) procedures have evolved rapidly in recent years, with robot-assisted (RA) techniques increasingly integrated into clinical practice. However, questions remain regarding the relative advantages of RA over traditional fluoroscopy-guided and navigation-assisted methods in terms of perioperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on these comparisons, focusing on the accuracy of screw placement, perioperative efficiency, radiographic and clinical outcomes, and complications.
aimTo investigate the comparative effectiveness of RA
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library (through May 2025). Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing RA with fluoroscopy - or navigation-guided LIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion, oblique lumbar interbody fusion) in adults. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to evaluate certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses were performed where data were sufficiently homogeneous.
resultsTwenty-two studies were included, encompassing a total of 2313 patients - 1046 who underwent RA-guided procedures and 1267 who received comparator techniques. Meta-analyses showed that RA significantly improved perfect pedicle screw placement [pooled odds ratio = 2.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.40-6.14;
conclusionRA LIF improves pedicle screw placement accuracy and reduces blood loss and surgeon radiation exposure while maintaining similar clinical outcomes and safety profiles to conventional techniques. These findings support the integration of RA into spine surgery but highlight the need for high-quality multicenter randomized controlled trials and cost-effectiveness studies to guide broader implementation.
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.