ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
A mentorship model for robotic-assisted navigation in pediatric spine surgery.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted navigation (RAN) systems improve pedicle screw placement accuracy, yet a significant learning curve persists. We implemented a mentorship model, pairing a single early-career attending spine surgeon (mentee) with an experienced, attending spine surgeon (mentor). This study evaluates the feasibility and safety of implementing a structured mentorship model for pediatric robotic-assisted spinal fusion. A retrospective review of patients ≤ 21 years with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing robot-assisted posterior spinal fusion was performed over 38 months. Operative outcomes were compared between mentor-led and mentee-led cases with a minimum of 90-day follow-up. 55 cases were included (39 mentor-primary, 16 mentee-primary cases). Total procedure time was not different between mentor-primary and mentee-primary cases (324 ± 58 and 332 ± 29, p = 0.38) nor was the number of robotically-placed screws per case (22 ± 6 and 22 ± 3, p = 0.11), robotically planned screws converted to freehand per case (1 ± 3 and 0 ± 1, p = 0.33), or abandoned robotic screws per case (1 ± 1 and 1 ± 1, p = 0.67). There was no difference between groups in the number of breaches per case (0.3 ± 0.7 and 0.3 ± 0.4, p = 0.84) nor percentage of patients with intraoperative neuromonitoring changes (2% and 6%, p = 0.50). There was no difference in readmission (both 0%) or surgical site infection (both 0%). One mentor-primary patient developed pseudoarthrosis requiring reoperation. These findings suggest that a structured mentorship model is a feasible approach for integration of robotic assisted navigation into a new attending's practice while maintaining acceptable safety and efficiency.Level of Evidence: IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42204062What 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.