ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2020
A digital anatomic investigation of the safe triangle areas for L1-5 percutaneous minimally invasive discectomy.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Morphological parameters of fourth lumbar spinous process palpation: a three-dimensional reconstruction of computed tomography.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- Lumbar safety triangle: comparative study of coronal and coronal oblique planes in 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo reconstruct the three-dimensional safe triangle areas at L1-5 based on the computed tomography digital data, analyze the safe scopes for the puncture location and angles, and provide anatomic references for percutaneous lumbar discectomy.
methodsComputed tomography data from patients and control group were imported from the database and anatomical reference parameters were measured in Mimics software. The rebuilt model was rotated clockwise along the M-axis to measure the inscribed circle radius of the safe triangle at different angles. Based on the outer diameter of the largest cannula, the safe angles were calculated. The distances between points on the projection of safe triangle-inscribed circle and the upper lumbar spinous process were measured. Similarly, while the safe triangle was on the left side, the model was contra-rotated to measure all the parameters.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the patient and control group in both the least distance between the selected anatomical reference locations and the safe triangle-inscribed circle radius at L4-5. According to the series which had a largest cannula of 2.5 mm, the safe puncture angles increased with the descending disc levels. The optimal angles were 40°-45° for L1-2, 45°-50° for L2-3, 50° for L3-4, and 55° for L4-5 separately. The differences between genders in the distances of paired reference points were significant.
conclusionsIndividual safe localization of the percutaneous puncture could be obtained by analyzing the three-dimensional relationship between the puncture localization and anatomical landmarks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31440808What 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.