Comparison of accuracy and safety between robot-assisted and conventional fluoroscope assisted placement of pedicle screws in thoracolumbar spine A meta-analysis

20Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the screw positioning accuracy, complications related to pedicle screw implantation, revision rate and radiation exposure between robot screw placement and traditional fluoroscopic screw placement. Methods: We searched several databases, including CNKI, Wanfang database, cqvip datebase, PubMed, Cochrane library and EMBASE, to identify articles that might meet the criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software. Results: A total of 13 randomized controlled trial were included. The results showed that the pedicle screw accuracy of the robot assisted group was significantly better than that of the conventional freehand (FH) group (OR=3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] [2.75,4.45], P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, C., Li, W., Gao, S., Cao, C., Li, C., He, L., … Li, M. (2021, September 24). Comparison of accuracy and safety between robot-assisted and conventional fluoroscope assisted placement of pedicle screws in thoracolumbar spine A meta-analysis. Medicine (United States). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027282

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free