The pedicle screw accuracy using a robotic system and measured by a novel 3-dimensional method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Robotics in medicine is associated with precision, accuracy, and replicability. Several robotic systems are used in spine surgery. They are all considered shared-control systems, providing "steady-hand" manipulation instruments. Although numerous studies have testified to the benefits of robotic instrumentations, they must address their true accuracy. Our study used the Mazor system under several situations and compared the spatial accuracy of the pedicle screw (PS) insertion and its planned trajectory. We used two cadaveric specimens with intact spinal structures from C7 to S1. PS planning was performed using the two registration methods (preopCT/C-arm or CT-to-fluoroscopy registration). After planning, the implant spatial orientation was defined based on six anatomic parameters using axial and sagittal CT images. Two surgical open and percutaneous access were used to insert the PS. After that, another CT acquisition was taken. Accuracy was classified into optimal, inaccurate and unacceptable according to the degree of screw deviation from its planning using the same spatial orientation method. Based on the type of spatial deviation, we also classified the PS trajectory into 16 pattern errors. Seven (19%) out of 37 implanted screws were considered unacceptable (deviation distances >2.0 mm or angulation >5°), and 14 (38%) were inaccurate ( >0.5 mm and ≤ 2.0 mm or >2.5º and ≤ 5º). CT-to-fluoroscopy registration was superior to preopCT/C-arm (average deviation in 0.9mm vs. 1.7mm, respectively, p<0.003), and percutaneous was slightly better than open but did not reach significance (1.3mm vs. 1.7mm, respectively). Regarding pattern error, the tendency was to have more axial than sagittal shifts. Using a quantitative method to categorize the screw 3D position, only 10.8% of the screws were considered unacceptable. However, with a more rigorous concept of inaccuracy, almost half were non-optimal. We also identified that, unlike some previous results, the O-arm registration delivers more accurate implants than the preopCT/C-arm method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".