To the Editor,
We read with great interest the article by Soni et al. [1], and the authors should be commended for achieving remarkably high pedicle-screw accuracy in such a large cohort. Their findings mark a meaningful step toward simplifying robotic workflows and expanding accessibility to image-guided spine surgery. Their work provides an important opportunity to further examine how fixation-free navigation can be optimized under real-world intraoperative conditions.
First, while the study demonstrates that bone-mounted fixation is not indispensable, the absence of an active motion-tracking safeguard raises concern regarding intraoperative registration drift. Even minimal patient or table displacement—imperceptible to the surgical team—may induce submillimetric coordinate deviation. Integrating accelerometer-based or artificial intelligence-supported drift-prediction models may allow dynamic recalibration of the robotic arm during screw insertion [2,3], reframing precision as an adaptive computational process rather than a purely mechanical one.
Second, the applicability of pinless navigation across diverse spinal morphologies warrants deeper evaluation. Thoracic deformity, rotational asymmetry, and complex three-dimensional anatomy introduce challenges that may not be fully represented in the reported cohort. Automated error mapping or learning-based adjustment algorithms—validated across multicenter datasets—could clarify the boundaries of morphological robustness for pinless systems [4].
Third, although workflow efficiency is an important outcome, time reduction should not be the sole indicator of progress. For real-world adoption, robotic platforms must demonstrate stability under dynamic intraoperative conditions, cost neutrality, and reduced cognitive load for the surgical team [5,6]. A motion-integrated ecosystem combining optical feedback, inertial sensing, and predictive analytics may redefine the operational meaning of “pinless precision.”
In summary, Soni et al. [1] have advanced the dialogue on fixation-free robotic guidance. We propose that the next frontier lies not merely in eliminating fixation, but in enabling the robot to sense, adapt, and learn—transforming pinless navigation into a self-correcting, computationally intelligent system.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Acknowledgments
The authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) solely for language editing and grammar checking under author supervision.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: TV, SKR. Data curation: TV, SKR, NKR. Formal analysis: TV, SKR, CT, NKR. Writing–original draft: TV, SKR, CT, NKR. Writing–review & editing: TV, SKR, CT, NKR. Supervision: NKR. Final approval of the manuscript: all authors.
References
- 1.Soni A, Srinivasa V, Thirugnanam B, Kanhangad MP, Joseph AX. Evaluating the feasibility of pinless robot-assisted spine surgery: a prospective study of 750 cases and 3,924 screws in the thoracolumbar spine in India. Asian Spine J. 2025;19:689–97. doi: 10.31616/asj.2025.0066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Vardiman AB, Wallace DJ, Booher GA, Toossi N, Bucklen BS. Decreasing the pedicle screw misplacement rate in the thoracic spine with robot-guided navigation. Clin Spine Surg. 2023;36:431–7. doi: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000001474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Huang M, Tetreault TA, Vaishnav A, York PJ, Staub BN. The current state of navigation in robotic spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9:86. doi: 10.21037/atm-2020-ioi-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Tovar MA, Dowlati E, Zhao DY, et al. Robot-assisted and augmented reality-assisted spinal instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of screw accuracy and outcomes over the last decade. J Neurosurg Spine. 2022;37:299–314. doi: 10.3171/2022.1.spine211345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Avrumova F, Sivaganesan A, Alluri RK, Vaishnav A, Qureshi S, Lebl DR. Workflow and efficiency of robotic-assisted navigation in spine surgery. HSS J. 2021;17:302–7. doi: 10.1177/15563316211026658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Staub BN, Sadrameli SS. The use of robotics in minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2019;5:S31–40. doi: 10.21037/jss.2019.04.16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
