Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 25, 2025
A Spine Robotic-Assisted Navigation System for Pedicle Screw Placement
Published on: May 11, 2020
Efficacy and safety of robotic spine surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis
Setefilla Luengo-Matos1, Luis María Sánchez-Gómez1,2, Ana Isabel Hijas-Gómez1
1Health Technology Assessment Agency (Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, AETS), Carlos III Institute of Health, Madrid, Spain.
Background:
Robotic surgery (RS) may offer benefits compared with freehand/conventional surgery (FS) in the treatment of patients with spinal disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RS versus FS in spinal fusion.
Methods:
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Data analysis and risk of bias assessment were analysed using REVMAN V5.3.
Results:
We found 11 randomised clinical trials involving 817 patients (FS: 408, RS: 409). The main diagnosis was degenerative spine disease. SpineAssist, Renaissance (Mazor Robotics), Tianji Robot and TiRobot robots (TINAVI Medical Technologies) were used. Pedicle screw placement within the safety zone (grades A + B according to the Gertzbein and Robbins scale) ranged from 93% to 100% in FS versus 85-100% in RS (relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.03, p = 0.14). Regarding intervention time, the meta-analysis showed a mean difference (MD) of 6.45 min (95% CI -13.59 to 26.49, p = 0.53). Mean hospital stay was MD of -0.36 days (95% CI -1.03 to 0.31, p = 0.30) with no differences between groups. Contradictory results were found regarding fluoroscopy time, although there seems to be a lower radiation dose in RS versus FS (p < 0.05). Regarding safety, the studies included surgical revision frequency.
Conclusions:
No conclusive results were found suggesting that there are benefits in using RS over FS for spinal fusion. Further research with adequate patient selection, robot type and quality-of-life variables is needed.
Level Of Evidence:
level 1.
