ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Budget impact analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional spine surgery in Spain.
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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted spine surgery (RASS) enhances procedural accuracy and reproducibility by ensuring full adherence to preoperative surgical plans. However, its widespread adoption remains limited by the need for a substantial upfront investment. In this study, the economic impact of spinal procedures performed under the guidance of the Mazor™ robotic system was compared with that of conventional techniques from an advanced Spanish hospital perspective. A 10-year budget impact analysis was conducted. The target population included all spinal surgeries potentially suitable for robot assistance, estimated from published data and expert input. Two scenarios were compared: a baseline scenario without Mazor™ and a progressive Mazor™ adoption scenario. Unit costs (€, 2025), obtained from Spanish sources, were applied to components of health care resource consumption. Model inputs and assumptions were validated by a panel of Spanish experts. A deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) was performed to assess the robustness of the results. The number of RASS-eligible patients increased from 213 to 330 annually over 10 years (2,673 total). The mean cost per patient was €10,093 for conventional surgery and €9,082 for RASS, generating average savings of €1,011 per patient. Savings were driven mainly by reductions in the length of hospital stay (€1,523), revision surgeries (€793), and complications (€261), outweighing the Mazor™ acquisition cost. Over the 10-year horizon, cumulative savings reached €2.54 million, achieving full capital investment recovery within 3.83 years. OWSA confirmed the robustness of these findings. From an advanced Spanish hospital perspective, the initial investment in RASS is recouped within four years, supporting its financial sustainability and long-term economic advantage over conventional spinal surgery.
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.