Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42696038›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

The accuracy of navigated vs. robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in spine surgery: a retrospective single-centre comparative study.

Ali Mulhem, Lennart Schreiweis, Harald Krenzlin, Jens Conrad, Sven Kantelhardt

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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

5 authors.

Ali MulhemDepartment of Continuing Education, DPhil Program in Evidence-Based Health Care., University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. ali.mulhem@kellogg.ox.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2614-610X
Lennart SchreiweisDepartment of Neurosurgery, Central Hospital of the Armed Forces (BwZK), Koblenz, Germany.
Harald KrenzlinDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Jens ConradDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5138-9293
Sven KantelhardtDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designRetrospective comparative cohort study.

introductionAccurate pedicle screw placement is critical for spinal stability and for preventing neurological or vascular injury. This study compared screw-placement accuracy and safety between robot-assisted and navigation-guided pedicle screw implantation and explored differences between intraoperative 3D-fluoroscopy and preoperative CT-based surface-matching registration.

methodsWe assessed all consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted or navigation-guided pedicle screw placement at our department between 2018 and 2022. For robot-assisted placement, screw trajectories were planned on preoperative CT, and intraoperative patient registration was performed using two radiographs fused with a preoperative CT. Navigation-guided placement used either intraoperative 3D-fluoroscopy registration in the final prone position or CT-based surface matching using preoperative supine CT images. Screw positions were evaluated on postoperative CT using a standardised ordinal grading scale from 0 to 4, with Grades 3-4 defined as clinically relevant malpositions. We analysed accuracy using generalised estimating equations with patient-level clustering and adjustment for covariates. We also assessed operative time, radiation exposure, complications, and revision rates.

resultsWe analysed 1,718 pedicle screws from 268 patients: 728 were robot-assisted and 990 navigation-guided, including 579 using 3D-fluoroscopy and 411 using CT-based surface matching. Mean screw grades were 0.956 for robot-assisted placement, 0.864 for navigation overall, 0.807 for 3D-fluoroscopy, and 0.944 for surface matching. After accounting for patient clustering and adjustment, screw grade did not differ significantly between navigation-guided and robot-assisted placement (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.50-1.53; p = 0.632). Grade 3-4 malpositions occurred in 11.7% of robot-assisted and 9.4% of navigation-guided screws, with no significant difference after adjustment. Radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time differed significantly between groups (p < 0.001), with the lowest median values for robot-assisted placement, followed by surface matching and 3D-fluoroscopy. Registration failure occurred in 12/118 (10.2%) robot-assisted patients compared with 2/150 (1.3%) navigation-guided patients. One new postoperative neurological deficit (foot drop) occurred in the robot-assisted group and none in the navigation group.

conclusionsNo significant overall difference in screw-placement accuracy was demonstrated between the two platforms (Robot vs. navigation) or registration modalities in this heterogeneous real-world cohort; however, they showed different operational profiles, particularly concerning intraoperative radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, and registration failure.

Indexed as

AccuracyIntraoperative 3D-fluoroscopyPedicle screw placementRadiation exposureRobot-assisted surgerySpinal instrumentationSpinal navigationSurface matching

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.