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
Impact of surgeon experience on the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted vs. navigation-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement: a matched cohort study.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare intraoperative screw revision and outcomes of robot-assisted versus navigation-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement and to explore whether outcomes differed by surgeon experience. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective cohort of 43 consecutive patients undergoing robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between September 2024 and March 2026 was compared with a matched historical cohort of 129 patients treated using navigated conventional percutaneous instrumentation. Propensity score matching included age, sex, ASA physical status, anatomical region, surgical indication, and surgeon expertise. Surgeons were stratified according to prior spondylodesis case volume. Outcomes included screw revision rates (as a measure of screw accuracy), screw placement time, operative time, blood loss, and perioperative complications.
resultsUnadjusted screw-level revision proportions were 2.3% with robotic assistance and 3.5% with navigation-guided instrumentation. In adjusted patient-level analysis, greater surgeon experience, but not robotic assistance, was associated with fewer revisions. In the lowest-experience group, the proportions were descriptively 4.3% and 8.2%, but the technique-by-experience interaction was not statistically significant. Median screw-placement time was longer with robotic assistance (7.8 vs. 5.5 min per screw, p < 0.001). No statistically significant between-group differences were detected in blood loss, length of stay, or complication rates.
conclusionRobot-assisted pedicle screw placement is safe and accurate, with comparable complication rates to conventional navigation. The observed increase in screw placement time may reflect the early adaptation phase of the robotic technique rather than an inherent limitation of the system. The descriptive reduction in revision rates among less experienced surgeons suggests a potential role for robotic assistance in supporting standardization and surgical training; however, this exploratory finding warrants confirmation in larger studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42900387What 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.