ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate pedicle screw placement is essential yet challenging in spinal surgery. This trial evaluated whether a robotic system with biplane fluoroscopic positioning could improve accuracy, efficiency, and safety compared to conventional fluoroscopy-guided techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis multicenter, parallel-group, randomized trial was conducted at three hospitals. A total of 70 patients requiring pedicle screw fixation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the robot-assisted group (RG) or the conventional fluoroscopy-guided group (CG). In the RG, a robotic navigation system assisted in planning and localizing the guide pin entry point and trajectory, based on a biplane algorithm that integrated anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopic images with optical tracking data to achieve real-time spatial registration. This biplane positioning technique was derived from the principles of the Dual Fluoroscopic Imaging System (DFIS). In the CG, guide pin placement was performed under conventional fluoroscopic guidance. The primary outcome was the deviation of guide pin placement. Secondary outcomes included the cumulative number of exposures, total radiation dose, operative time, average time to establish a single channel, and number of channel adjustments.
resultsThe mean deviation of guide pin placement in the RG was significantly smaller than that in the CG (0.86 ± 0.57 mm vs. 2.55 ± 1.88 mm, P<0.001). The RG also had significantly fewer cumulative number of exposures (4.56 ± 1.70 vs. 13.38 ± 19.01, P = 0.003) and lower total radiation doses (7.35 ± 3.33 μSv vs. 30.28 ± 97.41 μSv, P = 0.024). The operative time was similar between the groups (245.03 ± 67.06 min vs. 215.18 ± 83.08 min, P = 0.083). The number of channel adjustments was significantly lower in the RG (0.06 ± 0.29 vs. 0.28 ± 0.90, P = 0.014). There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups.
conclusionsThe robotic system with biplane fluoroscopic positioning improved guide pin accuracy and reduced radiation exposure, indicating its potential to enhance precision and safety in spinal surgery.
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.