↓ Skip to main content

Impact of robot-assisted spine surgery on health care quality and neurosurgical economics: A systemic review

Overview of attention for article published in Neurosurgical Review, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Impact of robot-assisted spine surgery on health care quality and neurosurgical economics: A systemic review
Published in
Neurosurgical Review, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10143-018-0971-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian Fiani, Syed A. Quadri, Mudassir Farooqui, Alessandra Cathel, Blake Berman, Jerry Noel, Javed Siddiqi

Abstract

Whenever any new technology is introduced into the healthcare system, it should satisfy all three pillars of the iron triangle of health care, which are quality, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility. There has been quite advancement in the field of spine surgery in the last two decades with introduction of new technological modalities such as CAN and surgical robotic devices. MAZOR SpineAssist/Renaissance was the first robotic system to be approved for the use in spine surgeries in the USA in 2004. In this review, the authors sought to determine if the current literature supports this technology to be cost-effective, accessible, and improve the quality of care for individuals and populations by increasing the likelihood of desired health outcomes. Robotic-assisted surgery seems to provide perfection in surgical ergonomics and surgical dexterity, consequently improving patient outcomes. A lot of data is present on the accuracy, effectiveness, and safety of the robotic-guided technology which reflects remarkable improvements in quality of care, making its utility convincingly undisputable. The technology has been claimed to be cost-effective but there seems to be lack of data in the literature on this topic to validate this claim. Apart from just the outcome parameters, there is an immense need of studies on real-time cost-efficacy, patient perspective, surgeon and resident learning curve, and their experience with this new technology. Furthermore, new studies looking into increased utilities of this technology, such as brain and spine tumor resection, deep brain stimulation procedures, and osteotomies in deformity surgery, might authenticate the cost of the equipment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 12%
Other 12 10%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 43 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 25%
Engineering 18 14%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Unspecified 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 48 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2020.
All research outputs
#13,592,375
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgical Review
#239
of 634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,393
of 329,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgical Review
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 634 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.