Technological progress in spine surgery has moved beyond the introduction of individual devices.The more important challenge now is to make different enabling technologies interact in a deliberate, pathologyspecific workflow.We propose a practical sequence for complex spine surgery: plan → visualize → navigate → execute → monitor → verify → integrate.Three-dimensional imaging and robotic planning can define anatomy and trajectories; three-dimensional digital visualization can improve the operative view and create a shared screen for the entire team; navigation can localize both implants and active instruments; robotic guidance and ultrasonic bone-cutting technology can assist execution; intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) can provide physiological feedback during critical manoeuvres; and intraoperative imaging can verify the result before closure.At our institution, this philosophy includes the complementary use of a Medtronic Mazor X robotic guidance platform, a ZEISS KINEVO robotic visualization platform, and thirdparty navigation registered to an ultrasonic bone scalpel handpiece.During procedures such as corpectomy, tracking the working tip can add spatial information as the cut approaches a less visible cortical boundary adjacent to critical neural or vascular structures.Navigation does not replace direct vision, anatomical knowledge, or surgical judgment; it adds another layer of information where the margin for error is small.Three-dimensional digital visualization also converts complex surgery into a shared teaching environment because the surgeon, assistant, fellows, nurses, and observers can view the same operative anatomy being projected on the screen by the exoscope using 3D glasses.The central philosophy is therefore simple: one system may help us reach the target, another may help us see the target, navigation may show where the working instrument lies, and IONM may show how the nervous system is responding.The surgeon integrates these inputs and remains the final decision-maker.The future is not the accumulation of technology, but the purposeful integration of technology around the patient and the operation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dave et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: