ArticleVeterinary record open2016
Can a surgeon drill accurately at a specified angle?
Article in Veterinary record open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06309784 (Development of a Drill Guidance System to Aid Intra-operative Surgical Drilling), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Development of a Drill Guidance System to Aid Intra-operative Surgical Drilling
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of accuracy and safety in guided versus freehand lateral-to-medial humeral transcondylar drilling.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2026Article
- Accuracy and efficiency of drilling trajectories with augmented reality versus conventional navigation randomized crossover trial.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Bi-Cortical transhumeral drilling for biceps tenodesis - Is it safe?Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2023Article
- Use of computed tomography to define a sacral safe corridor for placement of 2.7 mm cortical screws in feline sacroiliac luxation.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate whether a surgeon can drill accurately a specified angle and whether surgeon experience, task repetition, drill bit size and perceived difficulty influence drilling angle accuracy.
methodsThe sample population consisted of final-year students (n=25), non-specialist veterinarians (n=22) and board-certified orthopaedic surgeons (n=8). Each participant drilled a hole twice in a horizontal oak plank at 30°, 45°, 60°, 80°, 85° and 90° angles with either a 2.5 or a 3.5 mm drill bit. Participants then rated the perceived difficulty to drill each angle. The true angle of each hole was measured using a digital goniometer.
resultsGreater drilling accuracy was achieved at angles closer to 90°. An error of ≤±4° was achieved by 84.5 per cent of participants drilling a 90° angle compared with approximately 20 per cent of participants drilling a 30-45° angle. There was no effect of surgeon experience, task repetition or drill bit size on the mean error for intended versus achieved angle. Increased perception of difficulty was associated with the more acute angles and decreased accuracy, but not experience level. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that surgeon ability to drill accurately (within ±4° error) is limited, particularly at angles ≤60°. In situations where drill angle is critical, use of computer-assisted navigation or custom-made drill guides may be preferable.
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.