ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Utilisation of table-mounted versus floor-mounted robotic systems for thoracolumbar fusion: a before-and-after institutional experience.
Article 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted spinal fusion is increasingly prevalent, with floor-mounted and table-mounted systems available. Direct comparative data are limited, particularly regarding institutional adoption and utilization.This IRB-approved retrospective study analyzed a before-and-after institutional experience of 601 navigated thoracolumbar fusions at Changi General Hospital from May 2022 to April 2025. Cases were grouped by the system available during consecutive periods: table-mounted (May 2022-October 2023) or floor-mounted (November 2023 onwards). Demographic variables, operative time per fused level, utilization rates, case context (elective vs. emergency), surgeon adoption, and a Revenue-to-Asset Cost Ratio analysis were evaluated.Among 601 fusions (294 during the table-mounted period; 307 during the floor-mounted period), robotic utilization was significantly higher with the floor-mounted system (52.0% vs. 9.2%, p < 0.0001). The floor-mounted system was employed in emergencies (63/159 cases; 39.6%), whereas the table-mounted system was restricted to elective procedures (0/27 cases; 0%) (p < 0.001). The floor-mounted system handled broader case complexity (p < 0.001) and saw increased surgeon adoption (100% vs. 33%, p = 0.015), though all surgeons received formal training in the latter period. Standardizing for construct complexity, the median operative time per level was significantly shorter for the floor-mounted system compared to the table-mounted system (125.0 vs. 190.0 min; p < 0.001). Total Revenue-to-Asset Cost Ratio was 145.16% vs. 74.39%.Both platform offer distinct benefits, though outcomes depend on surgeon proficiency. The floor-mounted system demonstrated superior versatility - wider surgeon adoption, emergency applicability, concurrent use, and better financial returns, providing practical considerations for hospitals evaluating spinal robotics investments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42799947What 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.