SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided spinal fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis: a GRADE-assessed meta-analysis on surgical parameters, clinical outcomes, and complications.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. 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
Robot-assisted (RA) spinal fusion is an emerging technology for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, its purported advantages currently lack robust empirical evidence. This study aimed to evaluate whether RA spinal fusion offered superior outcomes compared to fluoroscopy-guided (FG) techniques in management of lumbar spondylolisthesis. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251083476). A systematic review was conducted by searching six databases for studies comparing RA and FG spinal fusion in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis, with data collected up to June 25, 2025. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0. The certainty of evidence was assessed in accordance with GRADE method. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to FG group, RA group demonstrated significantly longer operative duration [WMD = 47.37, 95% CI (40.65, 54.69), p < 0.01] but exhibited reduced intraoperative blood loss [WMD = -106.19, 95% CI (-137.48, -74.9), p < 0.01], lower postoperative drainage volume [WMD = -172.15, 95% CI (-188.68, -155.63), p < 0.01], and shorter hospitalization length [WMD = -2.93, 95% CI (-3.29, -2.57), p < 0.01]. Additionally, patients in RA group showed significantly lower postoperative visual analog scale scores and Oswestry disability index. According to Gertzbein and Robbins criteria, the rate of grade A pedicle screw placement accuracy was significantly higher in RA group than in FG group [OR = 2.17, 95% CI (1.29, 3.63), p < 0.01]. No significant differences were observed between both groups in radiation exposure time, fusion rate, overall complication rate, or revision rate (p > 0.05). In conclusion, RA spinal fusion appears to offer benefits in improving pedicle screw placement accuracy, reducing surgical trauma, and enhancing clinical outcomes. It also contributes to greater pain relief and faster recovery compared to conventional FG techniques. With the growing adoption of robotic-assisted spinal surgery and ongoing advancements in next-generation robotic systems, well-designed randomized controlled trials are warranted to further investigate the efficacy of RA technology in optimizing long-term prognosis and quality of life for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41555048What 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.