Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41483058›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026

Bibliometric analysis of robotic-assisted spinal surgery: trends, impact, and thematic insights.

Siddig Ibrahim Abdelwahab, Manal Mohamed Elhassan Taha, Abdullah Farasani, Jobran M Moshi, Ahmad Assiri, Saeed Alshahrani, Khaled A Sahli, Hussam M Shubaily, Marwa Qadri, Amani Khardali and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Siddig Ibrahim AbdelwahabHealth Research Center, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Manal Mohamed Elhassan TahaHealth Research Center, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah FarasaniDepartment of Medical Laboratory Technology, Faculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Jobran M MoshiDepartment of Medical Laboratory Technology, Faculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmad AssiriDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Saeed AlshahraniDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, Jazan University, Jazan, 45142, Saudi Arabia.
Khaled A SahliSecurity Forces Hospitals Program, General Directorate of Medical Services, Ministry of Interior, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hussam M ShubailyDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Marwa QadriDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, Jazan University, Jazan, 45142, Saudi Arabia.
Amani KhardaliDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Waseem HassanInstitute of Chemical Sciences, University of Peshawar, Peshawar, 25120, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. waseem_anw@yahoo.com.

Funding

Jazan University, Saudi Arabia 12899-jazzan-2023-JZU-R-2-1-HW
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic-assisted technologies have increasingly transformed spinal surgery over the past two decades by enhancing precision, minimizing operative risks, and improving clinical outcomes. This study conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global research on robotic applications in spinal surgery using a multi-tiered search strategy (Title–Abstract–Keywords, Abstract-only, and Title-only) in the Scopus database. Annual publication trends demonstrated consistent growth, with a pronounced rise after 2013, reflecting expanding clinical integration and research interest. Analysis of productivity revealed Tian, W. (55 publications), Theodore, N. (45), and Siewerdsen, J.H. (38) as the most prolific authors. Leading institutions included Harvard Medical School (110), Johns Hopkins University (108), and University of Toronto (103). The United States dominated country-level output with 2,826 publications, followed by China (1066) and Germany (657). Key funding agencies were the National Natural Science Foundation of China (361), NIH (240), and NSF (120), while the most productive journals included World Neurosurgery (254), Spine (185), and European Spine Journal (175). The top 100 most cited documents, published between 2001 and 2021 across 51 sources, comprised 80 original research articles and 20 reviews. These publications exhibited an average of 158.4 citations per document and a mean age of 12.4 years. Early publications (2001–2006) had high total citations but lower annual citation rates, whereas more recent studies (2017–2021) demonstrated increasing annual citation rates, peaking at 22 citations/year in 2020, reflecting growing research interest and impact in the field. Co-word analysis identified four dominant thematic clusters: (1) surgical precision and imaging-guided spinal interventions, (2) neurorehabilitation and functional recovery, (3) robotics in spinal oncology and radiotherapy, and (4) minimally invasive and perioperative safety-focused robotic procedures. Collectively, these themes demonstrate that high-impact research in robotic spinal surgery is driven by technological integration, enhanced surgical accuracy, and the pursuit of improved patient outcomes. Analysis of the top 25 papers reinforced the prominence of robotic guidance, comparative surgical studies, and rehabilitation-focused robotics. The findings clarify prevailing research directions and may assist in guiding the planning of future studies in this field.

Indexed as

BibliometricsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSpineHumansBibliometric analysisCo-words analysisRobotic spinal surgeryTop contributors

Identifiers

PMID41483058

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.