ReviewGlobal spine journal2026
The Impact of Image-Guided Screw Placement on Unexpected Return to the Operating Room: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 91,285 Patients.
Review in Global spine 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
Study designSystematic Review and Meta-Analysis.ObjectivesNavigation-guided screw placement improves screw accuracy and may reduce hardware-related revision, yet its effect on overall unexpected return to the operating room (URTO) remains uncertain. This study compares image-guided (navigation and robotics) with freehand screw placement for hardware-related revision, non-hardware reoperation, and URTO following spinal fixation.MethodsA PRISMA-guided systematic review identified comparative studies evaluating image-guided versus freehand screw fixation. Two reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses compared navigated, robotic, and freehand techniques.ResultsTwenty-one studies were included, comprising 91,285 patients (8,743 image-guided; 82,442 freehand). Compared with freehand, image guidance was associated with lower odds of hardware-related revision (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.75) and lower odds of URTO (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.94), with no difference in non-hardware reoperation (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.67-1.57). Navigation was associated with lower odds of hardware-related revision (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35-0.77) and URTO (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.77) versus freehand, whereas robotics showed no significant differences across outcomes. Indirect comparison between navigation and robotics was not statistically significant. Risk of bias was overall high because of retrospective study design, confounding, and inconsistent outcome reporting.ConclusionsNavigation was associated with lower odds of hardware-related revision and lower odds of URTO, without a difference in non-hardware reoperation. Robotics showed no statistically significant advantage over freehand fixation, but its underrepresentation and differing case mix limit comparative conclusions.
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.