SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robot-assisted targeting for osteoid osteoma: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate nidus access is essential for treating osteoid osteoma, but the incremental contribution of physical robotic targeting should be distinguished from imaging, definitive treatment, and the wider care pathway. We systematically reviewed peer-reviewed human reports in which a robot physically positioned or constrained an instrument used for biopsy or treatment. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched from inception through August 2026, without a final language restriction. Primary outcomes were success, recurrence or retreatment, and treatment-related complications. Secondary outcomes included localization, instrument corrections, radiation, procedure time, diagnostic yield, recovery, and cost. Twelve reports contained 440 report-level treatment records, including 232 robot-assisted procedures, before assessment of probable or possible overlap. Evidence comprised seven retrospective comparisons, four uncontrolled series, and one case report. Robot-proximal findings generally favored more reproducible or conservative access, including fewer Kirschner-wire corrections, shorter localization, greater resection accuracy, or a smaller bone window. Procedure-time effects varied by comparator and workflow. In comparisons that approximately held treatment constant, clinical success, later pain, recurrence, and complications were not clearly improved. Apparent advantages over open surgery mainly reflected minimally invasive access or treatment modality rather than robotic targeting alone. Meta-analysis was not performed because clinically equivalent comparisons were not independently replicated, outcome definitions differed, and cohort overlap was probable or possible. Comparative certainty was very low. Robotic targeting may improve trajectory execution in technically demanding lesions, but superior long-term effectiveness, safety, diagnostic adequacy, robot-attributable radiation reduction, and cost-effectiveness remain unproven.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42671500What 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.