ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
Mechanized precision: the rise of robotic systems in spinal surgery.
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted spinal surgery has rapidly evolved into a transformative innovation. Initially developed for pedicle screw placement, current systems now support broader indications, offering enhanced precision, reduced radiation exposure and potentially improved perioperative outcomes; however, widespread adoption remains limited by technical, financial and educational barriers.
objectiveThis narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of robotic spinal surgery, addressing technological evolution, platform-specific characteristics, clinical outcomes and future perspectives.
methodsA structured literature review was conducted, synthesizing clinical studies, meta-analyses and technical reports. Key outcome measures included screw placement accuracy, radiation exposure, blood loss, operative time and complication rates.
resultsRobotic systems achieve > 95% grades A/B pedicle screw accuracy. Studies report significantly reduced radiation and blood loss, especially in minimally invasive procedures. Operative times improve with experience. Major challenges include high costs, steep learning curves and limited intraoperative autonomy. Emerging applications and integration of artificial intelligence (AI) are expanding the clinical utility.
conclusionRobotics offer significant potential for improving precision, safety, and standardization in spinal surgery. Continued advancements in AI, training and cost-efficiency are crucial for broader clinical integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41963617What 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.