ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Robot-assisted versus conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a propensity score-matched cohort study on total and hidden blood loss.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHidden blood loss (HBL) represents an important component of perioperative bleeding after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), especially in multilevel procedures. Whether robot-assisted PLIF (R-PLIF) is associated with lower total blood loss (TBL) and HBL than conventional PLIF remains uncertain.
methodsThis was a single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted PLIF (R-PLIF) or conventional PLIF between January 2019 and December 2023. After common-support restriction and 1:1 propensity score matching with an exact-match constraint on fused levels, 102 R-PLIF cases were matched to 102 controls; 58 patients fell outside the region of overlap and 138 additional eligible patients were not retained because no acceptable match was available under the prespecified caliper. TBL was calculated using Nadler's and Gross's formulae; visible blood loss (VBL) was defined as intraoperative loss plus postoperative drainage; HBL was derived rather than directly measured, using HBL = TBL - VBL + transfusion volume; the postoperative hematocrit used for the Gross calculation was obtained on postoperative day 1 (within 24 h). A linear model with robust standard errors clustered by matched pair was used to assess the interaction between surgical approach and number of levels.
resultsTBL was significantly lower in the R-PLIF group (500.5 ± 276.6 mL) than in the PLIF group (629.0 ± 293.0 mL) (MD - 128.4 mL, 95% CI - 148.7 to - 108.1; P < 0.001). Compared with conventional PLIF, R-PLIF was associated with lower VBL (308.1 ± 146.6 vs. 401.4 ± 173.8 mL; P < 0.001) and lower HBL (224.8 ± 175.0 vs. 282.5 ± 194.9 mL; MD - 57.8 mL; P = 0.001). An exploratory approach × level interaction (P < 0.001) suggested that the between-group difference in TBL was larger among patients undergoing ≥ 2-level fusion.
conclusionsIn this propensity score-matched retrospective cohort, R-PLIF was associated with lower estimated TBL, VBL, and formula-derived HBL than conventional PLIF. However, causality cannot be established, residual confounding may persist, and the clinical significance of the approximately 128-mL mean TBL difference remains uncertain.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.