ArticleBioMed research international2016
The Utility of a Digital Virtual Template for Junior Surgeons in Pedicle Screw Placement in the Lumbar Spine.
Article in BioMed research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thoracic, Lumbar, and Sacral Pedicle Screw Placement Using Stryker-Ziehm Virtual Screw Technology and Navigated Stryker Cordless Driver 3: Technical Note.Journal of clinical medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the utility of three-dimensional preoperative image reconstruction as digital virtual templating for junior surgeons in placing a pedicle screw (PS) in the lumbar spine. Twenty-three patients of lumbar disease were operated on with bilateral PS fixation in our hospital. The two sides of lumbar pedicles were randomly divided into "hand-free group" (HFG) and "digital virtual template group" (DVTG) in each patient. Two junior surgeons preoperatively randomly divided into these two groups finished the placement of PSs. The accuracy of PS and the procedure time of PS insertion were recorded. The accuracy of PS in DVTG was 91.8% and that in HFG was 87.7%. The PS insertion procedure time of DVTG was 74.5 ± 8.1 s and that of HFG was 90.9 ± 9.9 s. Although no significant difference was reported in the accurate rate of PS between the two groups, the PS insertion procedure time was significantly shorter in DVTG than in HFG (P < 0.05). Digital virtual template is simple and can reduce the procedure time of PS placement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.