©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Orthop. Nov 18, 2025; 16(11): 110276
Published online Nov 18, 2025. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v16.i11.110276
Published online Nov 18, 2025. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v16.i11.110276
Table 1 Summary of included studies
| Ref. | Country | Study design | Procedure type | Sample size (RA/comparator) | Robotic platform | Comparator type |
| Wang et al[1], 2023 | China | Prospective | MIS-TLIF | 61/62 | TiRobot | Freehand fluoroscopy |
| Tong et al[2], 2024 | China | Retrospective | OLIF | 16/22 | Third-gen Mazor X navigation robot | Fluoroscopy |
| Shafi et al[3], 2022 | United States | Retrospective | MIS-TLIF | 92/130 | ExcelsiusGPS | Intraoperative navigation |
| Griepp et al[4], 2024 | United States | Retrospective | MIS-TLIF | 50/133 | Mazor X Stealth robot | Fluoroscopy-assisted |
| Lin et al[5], 2022 | Taiwan | Retrospective | MIS-TLIF | 75/149 | ROSA | Freehand fluoroscopy |
| Li et al[6], 2025 | China | Retrospective | LLIF | 31/28 | TianJi Robot | Traditional LLIF |
| Heath et al[7], 2024 | Taiwan | Retrospective | MIS-TLIF | 42/58 | ROSA ONE | O-arm navigation |
| Chang et al[11], 2022 | China | Prospective | MIS-TLIF | 26/32 | TiRobot | MIS-TLIF |
| Lai et al[15], 2022 | Taiwan | Retrospective | TLIF | 29/79 | Renaissance | Freehand fluoroscopy |
| Zhang et al[20], 2019 | China | Prospective | TLIF | 43/44 | TiRobot | FG |
| Zhang et al[21], 2019 | China | Prospective | TLIF | 50/50 | Robot assisted | FG |
| Chen et al[22], 2021 | China | Retrospective | MIS-TLIF | 52/52 | TiRobot | Freehand open TLIF |
| Cui et al[23], 2021 | China | Retrospective | MIS-TLIF | 23/25 | TiRobot | Open TLIF surgery |
| Feng et al[24], 2020 | China | RCT | OLIF | 40/40 | TiRobot | Open freehand fluoroscopy |
| Li et al[25], 2024 | China | Retrospective | MIS-TLIF | 58/56 | Tianji Robot | Freehand fluoroscopy |
| Han et al[26], 2021 | China | Retrospective | OLIF vs TLIF | 28/33 | TiRobot | MIS-TLIF |
| De Biase et al[27], 2021 | United States | Retrospective | MIS-TLIF | 52/49 | Mazor X | FG |
| Fayed et al[28], 2020 | United States | Retrospective | MIS-TLIF | 103/90 | ExcelsiusGPS | FG |
| Yang et al[29], 2019 | China | Retrospective | MIS-TLIF | 30/30 | Robot-assisted surgical system | FG |
| Schatlo et al[30], 2014 | Germany | Retrospective | TLIF | 55/40 | Mazor | FG |
| Li et al[31], 2024 | China | Retrospective | RA MIS-TLIF (group A) vs RA UBE-T/PLIF (group B) vs traditional MIS-TLIF (group C) | A: 27, B: 30, C: 26 | Tianji Robot (3rd Gen) | Traditional MIS-TLIF |
| Li et al[32], 2022 | China | Retrospective | RA MIS-TLIF | 33/39 | Tianji Robot | Traditional MIS-TLIF |
- Citation: Ardila CM, Ángel-Estrada S, González-Arroyave D. Robot-assisted vs conventional lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes. World J Orthop 2025; 16(11): 110276
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v16/i11/110276.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v16.i11.110276