ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2020
Acceptable errors with evaluation of 577 cervical pedicle screw placements.
Article in 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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy and Safety of a Triad-Dependent Technique for Subaxial Cervical Pedicle Screw Placement: A Prospective Cohort Study.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement using a patient-specific template guide system and risk factor analysis for screw perforation: CT-based evaluation of 437 screws.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 · 2025Article
- Virtual reality force feedback spine surgery simulator training for pedicle screw placement: assessing the impact of seniority and spinal region.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Robotic assistance for upper cervical instrumentation: report on accuracy and safety.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 · 2025Article
- Comparison of different imaging devices and navigation systems for cervical pedicle screw placement: an experimental study on screw accuracy, screw placement time and radiation dose.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Accurate Placement and Revisions for Cervical Pedicle Screws Placed With or Without Navigation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Clinical application of spinal robot in cervical spine surgery: safety and accuracy of posterior pedicle screw placement in comparison with conventional freehand methods.Neurosurgical review · 2023Article
- Assessment of Biomechanical Advantages in Combined Anterior-Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery by Radiological Outcomes: Pedicle Screws over Lateral Mass Screws.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Letter to the Editor on "Transpedicular Screw Placement Accuracy Using the O-Arm Versus Freehand Technique at a Single Institution. Global Spine Journal" by Crawford et al.Global spine journal · 2021Article
- Techniques of cervical pedicle screw insertion in lower cervical spine - A review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and traumaReview
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCadaveric studies have discouraged the use of cervical pedicle screws (CPS) with high misplacement rates. However, the clinical results show minimal screw-related complications and have highlighted the advantages of using CPS. We introduce "acceptable errors classification" in the placement of cervical pedicle screws to bridge the gap between the high radiological perforation rates and low clinical complications.
methodsNinety-nine patients with average age of 49 years were operated between December 2011 and June 2017 using CPS. Sixty-one patients had trauma, 33 had CSM, 3 had tumors and 2 patients had fracture with ankylosing spondylitis. The screws were inserted using the medial cortical pedicle screw technique. Axial and sagittal CT reconstructed images along the axis of the inserted screws were evaluated for screw placements both in the medio-lateral and supero-inferior directions.
resultsA total of 577 pedicle screw placements (C3 to C7) were assessed in 99 patients using the conventional grading of screw perforations and acceptable errors classification in both medio-lateral and supero-inferior directions. There were 25.64% (148/577) screw perforations and 74.35% (429/577) screw placements within the pedicle using the conventional perforation grading system. The same set of screws, assessed using the "Acceptable errors classification", showed 529 screws (91.68%) having acceptable placements and 48 screws (8.31%) having unacceptable placements.
conclusionThe acceptable errors classification in placement of CPS seems to bridge the gap between the high radiological perforation rates and the low clinical complications. The present study reinforces studies reporting minimal clinical complications with high rates of screw misplacements. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
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.