Revised in-depth meta-analysis on the efficacy of robot-assisted versus traditional free-hand pedicle screw insertion
Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · Published 2024-08-28 · DOI 10.1016/j.lers.2024.08.002
Authors being retrieved — see the publisher record. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lers.2024.08.002
Abstract
Objective: Robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion has recently emerged as an alternative to the traditional free-hand technique. However, discrepancies in the accuracy of screw placement between the 2 methods have been highlighted by some comparative studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize evidence comparing these techniques. Methods: Searches were conducted in 5 electronic databases adhering to specific eligibility criteria for randomized and observational studies. The data were analyzed using RevMan software and the results are presented as odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, or standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our analysis included 12 studies (7 randomized trials and 5 observational studies, involving 883 patients and 4903 screws). Results: The results demonstrated a higher rate of Grade A Gertzbein and Robbins pedicle placement score (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.10–2.87), a lower rate of revision surgeries (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.09–0.52), and a shorter radiation exposure duration (SMD = −1.38, 95% CI: −2.32 to −0.44) in the robot-assisted group compared with the free-hand group. Nonetheless, the length of hospital stay, volume of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative visual analogue scale scores for back pain, and rate of wound infection were similar between the 2 groups. Significant heterogeneity was observed in some outcomes. Conclusion: Compared with the free-hand method, the robot-assisted technique provides greater accuracy and reduced radiation exposure. The efficacy of the robot-assisted technique is expected to improve further as experience with its use in surgery grows.
Abstract from DOAJ. Public domain (CC0 1.0).
Read the article at the publisher →
Publication details
- Year
- 2024
Related articles
- Development and validation of a nomogram to predict the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter retrospective study · Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · 2026 · Same journal
- Combining traditional laparoscopic box practice with video gaming: A randomized control trial · Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · 2025 · Same journal
- Recent patterns in minimally invasive colectomies: Where are we now? · Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · 2024 · Same journal
- Mesenteric teratoma of the small bowel: A rare entity in abdominal surgery · Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · 2026 · Same journal
- Helicobacter pylori infection may result in poor gastric cleanliness in magnetically controlled capsule gastroscopy examination: A single-center retrospective study · Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · 2024 · Same journal
- The outcomes of magnetic sphincter augmentation in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease post bariatric surgery: A systemic review and meta-analysis · Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · 2025 · Same journal
- Clinical review of robotic distal pancreatectomy · Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · 2025 · Same journal
- From forceps manipulation theory to cognitive support in robotic surgery: Conceptualizing “Level 0+” as a cognitive-support state in fully surgeon-controlled surgery · Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · 2026 · Same journal
- Reducing surgeon musculoskeletal discomfort through ergonomic optimization in robotic surgery: A quality improvement evaluation · Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · 2026 · Same journal
- Minimally invasive management of lung metastases using robotic bronchoscopy: First French experience · Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · 2025 · Same journal