ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Extended uses of robots in spine surgery beyond thoracolumbar pedicle screws: A narrative review.
Review 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic assistance in spine surgery has matured considerably over the past two decades, with its initial role confined largely to thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement. As robotic platforms have evolved from bone-mounted miniature systems to contemporary real-time navigation platforms integrating intraoperative three-dimensional imaging, surgeons have progressively extended robotic guidance to technically demanding procedures across the entire spinal axis. This narrative review synthesizes the current evidence for extended robotic applications beyond standard thoracolumbar (T1–S1) pedicle screws. Five principal categories of extended application are examined: (1) cervical spine fixation, including subaxial pedicle screws (C3–C7), upper cervical constructs (C1–C2), and percutaneous cervical fracture fixation; (2) spinopelvic and pelvic procedures, particularly S2 alar-iliac screw placement; (3) vertebral augmentation, including vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and sacroplasty; (4) biopsy and targeted puncture workflows; and (5) anterior and lateral interbody fusion approaches. For each category, we review the available evidence on accuracy, safety, clinical outcomes, and technical considerations. Across these extended applications, reported accuracy rates generally range from 93% to 99.8%, with low complication rates and favorable perioperative outcomes. However, the evidence base is dominated by retrospective case series and single-center experiences, with very few randomized controlled trials. We identify critical gaps in the literature and propose directions for future research, including the need for multicenter prospective studies, standardized outcome reporting, cost-effectiveness analyses, and long-term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41781797What 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.