Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42483260›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2026

Optimizing Outcomes in Spinal Tumor Surgery: A Meta-analysis Comparing Robotic and Freehand Pedicle Screw Placement.

Paweł Łajczak, Anna Łajczak

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 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

2 authors.

Paweł ŁajczakDepartment of Biophysics, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0281-5417
Anna ŁajczakDepartment of Biophysics, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0009-0009-4376-0660

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Accurate pedicle screw placement is critical in spinal tumor and metastasis surgery to ensure stability while minimizing complications. Robot-assisted (RA) techniques have been introduced to improve precision, but their benefits over traditional freehand methods remain uncertain. This study systematically reviews and meta-analyzes the accuracy, safety, and efficiency of RA versus freehand pedicle screw placement in patients with spinal tumors and metastases. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across five databases. Studies comparing RA and freehand pedicle screw placement in spinal tumor patients were included. Primary outcomes assessed screw accuracy using the Gertzbein-Robbins (GR) classification, while secondary outcomes included operative time, infection rates, and neurological complications. Data were pooled using odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with a random-effects model. Results: Three studies were included. RA significantly improved screw placement accuracy (GR A: 76.1% vs. 70.3%, OR 1.34, Conclusion: RA pedicle screw placement showed a trend toward a higher rate of perfectly placed screws (GR A), though this was not confirmed by trial sequential analysis. Overall safety profiles were comparable. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of spinal oncology surgery.

Indexed as

Meta-analysisMetastasesPedicle screw placementRobot-assisted surgerySpinal tumors

Identifiers

PMID42483260
PMCPMC13385542

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.