Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42403769›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Comparative Accuracy of Preoperative Planning Technologies in Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Meshal Jarebi, Mohammed S Alhomaidi, Salman H Ghzwani, Othman D Alamri, Abdulmalik M Almukhashi, Saud M Almousa, Abdulaziz S Almuhaisen, Mohammad F Aljuhani, Albaraa M Aati, Zahra H Al Ghazwi and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Meshal JarebiNeurosurgery, King Fahad Central Hospital, Abu Arish, SAU.
Mohammed S AlhomaidiCollege of Medicine, University of Hail, Hail, SAU.
Salman H GhzwaniCollege of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, EGY.
Othman D AlamriCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, SAU.
Abdulmalik M AlmukhashiCollege of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.
Saud M AlmousaCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, SAU.
Abdulaziz S AlmuhaisenCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, SAU.
Mohammad F AljuhaniFaculty of Medicine, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, SAU.
Albaraa M AatiFaculty of Medicine, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, SAU.
Zahra H Al GhazwiCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, SAU.
Raed S AlruwailiCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preoperative surgical planning is central to achieving optimal spinal alignment in spinal deformity (SD) surgery; however, the extent to which different planning modalities accurately translate preoperative goals into surgical outcomes remains incompletely characterized. This systematic review evaluates the accuracy and clinical usefulness of existing preoperative planning tools in SD surgery. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting quantitative accuracy data for any preoperative planning modality in SD surgery were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for randomized controlled trials. A total of 32 studies involving more than 3,500 patients published between 2006 and 2025 were included, encompassing the following six planning modalities: robotic-assisted navigation, three-dimensional (3D)-printed patient-specific guides, virtual surgical planning (VSP) software, advanced imaging techniques, mathematical regression formulas, and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted platforms. Pedicle screw placement demonstrated high rates of accuracy overall with planning-assisted techniques than with 72-90% with free-hand techniques. A limited proportion of cases achieved simultaneous attainment of all three primary sagittal alignment targets, despite per-parameter achievement rates exceeding 68%. The integration of patient-specific rods within virtual surgical planning (VSP) contributed to improved alignment outcomes. Three-dimensional printing-guided osteotomy demonstrated a substantial reduction in neurological complications compared with traditional freehand techniques. Planning-assisted technologies improve surgical accuracy across multiple modalities in SD surgery; however, simultaneous achievement of all sagittal correction goals remains challenging. Key limitations include the lack of standardized outcome measures and the need for prospective comparative studies evaluating the relationship between planning accuracy and patient-reported outcomes. This systematic review aimed to map available planning tools, evaluate their accuracy in achieving preoperative goals, and identify factors associated with planning success or failure.

Indexed as

lumbar lordosispelvic incidencepelvic tiltpreoperative planningrobotic-assisted spine surgerysagittal balancesagittal vertical axisspinal alignmentspinal deformitysurgical planning accuracy

Identifiers

PMID42403769
PMCPMC13332398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.