ArticleBMC surgery2026
Hidden blood loss in robot-assisted vs. conventional midline lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center propensity-score-matched cohort study.
Article in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHidden blood loss (HBL) is a substantial, often underestimated component of bleeding in spine surgery. Evidence for its reduction with robot-assisted midline lumbar interbody fusion (RMIDLIF) remains limited.
methodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort comparing RMIDLIF with conventional MIDLIF. After excluding cases outside the common-support region, 1:1 propensity score matching yielded 82 pairs. The primary endpoint was HBL; secondary endpoints included total blood loss (TBL), visible blood loss, operative time, and length of stay (LOS). Within RMIDLIF, multivariable linear regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses evaluated factors associated with severe HBL (≥ 300 mL).
resultsCompared with MIDLIF, RMIDLIF showed lower HBL (320.45 ± 97.70 vs. 467.21 ± 146.36 mL; mean difference − 146.76 mL, 95% CI − 185.18 to − 108.35; P < 0.001) and TBL (476.02 ± 159.22 vs. 714.28 ± 211.44 mL; difference − 238.25 mL, 95% CI − 296.01 to − 180.50; P < 0.001). Operative time (− 17.2 min; P < 0.001) and LOS (− 0.79 days; P = 0.01) were also reduced. Within RMIDLIF, higher HBL was independently associated with more fused levels (β = 76.9 mL/level; P = 0.001), longer operative time (β = 2.32 mL/min; P = 0.002), higher ASA class (β = 74.27 mL/class; P = 0.001), and greater preoperative fibrinogen (β = 55.69 mL/g·L⁻¹; P = 0.002). ROC analyses identified clinically useful cutoffs for operative time (128.5 min) and fibrinogen (2.82 g/L) to flag severe HBL.
conclusionsRMIDLIF was associated with lower hidden and total blood loss, shorter operative time, and shorter hospitalization than conventional MIDLIF. In RMIDLIF, fusion levels, operative time, ASA class, and preoperative fibrinogen independently predicted higher HBL; the identified thresholds may assist perioperative risk stratification and blood management. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.