ReviewInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2016
Cervical screw placement using rapid prototyping drill templates for navigation: a literature review.
Review in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 3D-printed navigation template in cervical spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021Pooled it
- Pedicle screw placement in spinal neurosurgery using a 3D-printed drill guide template: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Pooled it
- The Subaxial Cervical Pedicle Screw for Cervical Spine Diseases: The Review of Technical Developments and Complication Avoidance.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2020Review
- Subaxial Cervical Pedicle Screw in Traumatic Spinal Surgery.Korean journal of neurotrauma · 2020Review
- A Comparative Study of C2 Pedicle or Pars Screw Placement with Assistance from a 3-Dimensional (3D)-Printed Navigation Template versus C-Arm Based Navigation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Article
- Design and manufacturing of a patient-specific nasal implant for congenital arhinia: Case report.JPRAS open · 2019Article
- Systematic review of 3D printing in spinal surgery: the current state of play.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2017Review
- Accuracy Assessment of Using Rapid Prototyping Drill Templates for Atlantoaxial Screw Placement: A Cadaver Study.BioMed research international · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDue to the high screw malposition rate and the potential risk of neurovascular injury in cervical fixation surgeries, guided tools, mainly computer-assisted surgery navigation systems and rapid prototyping drill templates (RPDTs) have increasingly been developed to help surgeons improve screw placement accuracy. Although RPDTs have been used in cervical surgeries for almost 2 decades, no specific review has been performed detailing the state of this technique. Thus, in the current review, we fully discuss the status of applying RPDTs in cervical surgeries.
methodsStudies that tested the accuracy and reliability of RPDTs in guiding cervical screw placements were included in this review. The fabrication workflow and usage of RPDTs, the accuracy and reliability of using RPDTs for screw and plate placement, the advantages and disadvantages of RPDTs and their prospects for future applications as a part of cervical fixation instrumentation are discussed.
resultsAs the design of RPDTs becomes more rational, the accuracy and reliability of these devices have significantly improved in cervical fixation surgeries. Moreover, RPDTs decrease the intraoperative radiation exposure for surgeons and patients relative to conventional methods. However, some disadvantages also exist. The fabrication of RPDTs is time-consuming, and the time required to learn the related software is long.
conclusionWe believe that because of their merits, the RPDT technique is worth promoting for use in cervical surgeries. However, the time-consuming fabrication workflow and the long period required to learn the related software might limit its widespread use. In the future, the workflow should be simplified to reduce the extra workload for surgeons. Moreover, more clinical studies with high-level evidence are still needed to further test its accuracy and feasibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27160327What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.