ArticleScientific reports2026
Robot-assisted lumbar facet joint infiltration improves accuracy and reduces radiation exposure compared to the manual technique in a comparative phantom study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Compact robotic systems offer new opportunities for spinal procedures outside the operating room, but their potential for small-scale interventions such as facet joint infiltrations remains underexplored. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility, accuracy, radiation exposure, and user experience of a compact robotic assistance system (Micromate) for lumbar facet joint infiltrations compared to the manual technique using a standardized phantom model. The robot allows needle placement after a single registration with two orthogonal fluoroscopic images, enabling multiple punctures without repeat imaging. Twenty-two neurosurgeons (0-23 years of experience) performed bilateral infiltrations from L1/2 to L5/S1 both manually and with robotic assistance on an embedded synthetic lumbar spine model. Outcomes included fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, number of X-rays, needle repositioning, and accuracy (Euclidean distance to predefined targets on 3D scans). User experience was evaluated using the NASA-TLX and structured questionnaires. Robotic guidance significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (5.4 vs. 13.7 s), radiation dose (1.95 vs. 3.12 mGy), and X-ray count (6.4 vs. 15.3). Manual infiltrations required multiple needle repositionings (mean 22.2 per participant), whereas there were none in the robotic group (per protocol). Accuracy was higher with robotic assistance (5.9 vs. 7.3 mm deviation; p < 0.001), and placement was more consistent across spinal levels. Although total procedure time was longer robotically (27.4 vs. 11.6 min), a learning effect was observed and participants rated their performance higher with the robot. Compact robot-assisted facet joint infiltration is feasible and improves accuracy while reducing radiation exposure. Its potential for multi-level, low-radiation interventions combined with its lower infrastructural requirements may offer a practical and cost-effective alternative to CT-guided procedures, particularly in outpatient settings.
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.