ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Impact of robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw placement on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF): a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw placement under an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol compared to traditional freehand CBT placement on perioperative outcomes and postoperative recovery in patients undergoing midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF).
methodsIn this retrospective study, 81 patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease who underwent single-level L4/5 MIDLIF between January 2020 and June 2025 were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: 37 underwent freehand CBT screw placement (control group), and 44 received robot-assisted CBT screw placement within the ERAS protocol (ERAS group). The comparison involved various perioperative metrics, such as drainage volume, blood loss, operative duration, rate of transfusion, use of analgesics, occurrence of postoperative vomiting, length of hospital stay (LOS), and complications. Pain levels and functional outcomes were evaluated with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) both before surgery and after one year.
resultsThe ERAS group experienced significantly less blood loss, reduced drainage volume, decreased analgesic requirements, and a lower incidence of vomiting compared to the control group (P < 0.05). LOS was shorter in the ERAS group (4.27 vs. 5.03 days, P = 0.001). Although the surgical duration was extended in the ERAS group, the complication rates did not differ significantly. Significant enhancements in VAS and ODI scores were observed in both groups one year after surgery (P < 0.001).
conclusionThe integration of robot-assisted CBT screw placement with the ERAS protocol presents considerable benefits for perioperative care and recovery after surgery, while not elevating the risk of complications. This method could prove to be a vital approach for improving surgical results and encouraging the wider implementation of ERAS in spinal operations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41511502What 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.