ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Transforming spinal surgery: five years of navigation, workflow optimization and clinical impact.
Article in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Navigation-assisted spinal instrumentation is increasingly used in modern spine surgery, offering improvements in accuracy, workflow efficiency, and radiation safety. However, real-world implementation and the transition from fluoroscopy to navigation in high-volume trauma centers remain insufficiently described. Methods: This retrospective single-center study reviewed all dorsal spinal instrumentation procedures performed between 2015 and 2025 at a Level I trauma center. A total of 557 patients were analyzed: 119 navigated and 438 fluoroscopic procedures. Demographics, ASA classification, operative time, screw count, radiation parameters, anatomical distribution, and revision rates were compared, with specific focus on changes after the introduction of navigation in 2020. Results: Navigation use increased steadily and expanded from lumbar to more anatomically demanding regions. Navigated cases involved older patients with higher ASA scores. Although operative times were longer in navigated procedures, this was explained by higher screw counts, and time per screw did not differ significantly. A clear learning curve was observed, with time per screw improving from 27 (±22) to 19 (±7) minutes ( Conclusion: Navigation substantially altered clinical practice, leading to its predominant use in complex anatomies and higher-risk patients. It improved screw accuracy and reduced radiation exposure while maintaining procedural efficiency after the learning curve. With ongoing advances such as robotics, augmented reality, and markerless registration, the role of navigation in spinal trauma surgery is expected to expand further.
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.