ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Impact of a novel spine stabilization technique on intervertebral movement in cervical spine surgery using a humanoid surgical robotic system.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 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
Background: Navigation and robotic systems in spine surgery rely on the assumption that the spine behaves as a rigid body during surgery; however, intervertebral motion persists under typical intraoperative conditions. For robotic execution of hard-tissue procedures to be effective, the system must be capable of autonomously securing and stabilizing the target vertebra throughout the intervention. Methods: A cadaveric study was performed using 6 human cervical spine specimens. In part 1, C2-C7 vertebrae were instrumented with markers and subjected to robotically applied 30 N forces along planned pedicle screw trajectories, with and without robotic stabilization. Intervertebral motion was quantified using a 3D optical tracking system. In part 2, surgeons placed 30 cervical pedicle screws (C1-T1) using standard robot-assisted navigation and 36 screws using a novel FDA-cleared bi-manual 2-armed surgical robotic system incorporating autonomous vertebral stabilization and individual vertebra tracking. Screw accuracy was assessed by comparing planned and actual trajectories on postoperative 3D imaging. Results: Robotic stabilization reduced translational motion by up to 57.8% and rotational motion by up to 57.4% at the targeted level, with meaningful reductions at adjacent levels and diminishing effects with increasing distance. No major pedicle screw placement errors (>2 mm or >2°) were observed with stabilization. Mean angular error decreased by 31.7% (1.5 ± 1.2° vs. 1.0 ± 0.5°). Conclusions: Bi-manual robotic stabilization significantly reduced intervertebral motion and improved pedicle screw placement accuracy. Targeted intraoperative stabilization may mitigate limitations associated with spinal nonrigidity in robotic-assisted navigation.
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.