ArticleInternational orthopaedics2020
New perspectives on surgical accuracy analysis of image-guided bone tumour resection surgery.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- How precise is excision and reconstruction using 3D printing technology for total sacrectomy: accuracy validation in 9 consecutive cases.3D printing in medicine · 2025Article
- Surgical Management of Sacral Bone Tumors: A Retrospective Analysis of Outcomes, Complications, and Survival.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Surgical and Oncologic Outcome following Sacrectomy for Primary Malignant Bone Tumors and Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer.Cancers · 2024Article
- What to choose in bone tumour resections? Patient specific instrumentation versus surgical navigation: a systematic review.Journal of bone oncology · 2023Review
- Current Concepts in the Resection of Bone Tumors Using a Patient-Specific Three-Dimensional Printed Cutting Guide.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Complex joint-preserving bone tumor resection and reconstruction using computer navigation and 3D-printed patient-specific guides: A technical note of three cases.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImage-guided bone tumour resection surgery has been proved in previous literatures to be more accurate than those conventional freehand ones (p < 0.001). However, in this kind of surgery, there are still many procedures depending on manual operations, which will inevitably introduce surgical errors into the surgery. In particular, the negative surgical errors (i.e., errors toward tumour) would increase the risk of tumor recurrence and metastasis. Thus, the first purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the negative surgical errors of image-guided bone tumour resection surgery were statistically significantly great, the second purpose is to evaluate whether the negative surgical errors of image-guided long-bone tumour resection surgery were statistically equivalent to those of pelvis surgery, and the last purpose is to recommend a solution for suppressing these errors when using a navigation system.
methodsNegative surgical errors of 24 osteotomies in ten pelvis tumour resection operations and 16 osteotomies in ten long-bone surgeries under the image guidance of a navigation system were statistically evaluated and compared with - 2.0 mm. The equivalence of negative surgical errors of pelvis group and those of long-bone group was statistically tested. To suppress these negative surgical errors when using a navigation system, we recommend, based on the obtained statistics, to increase the margins between cut planes and tumour boundary during pre-operatively planning cut planes, by adding an extra margin with the empirical safe margin according to the absolute lower bound of 95% CI of negative surgical errors.
resultsNegative surgical errors of the pelvis group and the long-bone group were both significantly less than - 2.0 mm (p < 0.001), but not statistically equivalent (Rg > 1 mm). 95% CI of negative surgical errors were from - 3.95 to - 3.27 mm for the pelvis group, and from - 2.69 to - 2.34 mm for the long-bone group. So, the extra margin added for image-guided pelvis tumour resection surgery should be set as 3.95 mm, and the extra margin added for image-guided long-bone surgery should be set as 2.69 mm.
conclusionThe negative surgical errors of image-guided bone resection surgery were statistically significantly less than - 2.0 mm (p < 0.001), thus these errors cannot be safely ignored. Moreover, the negative surgical errors of the pelvis group were not equivalent to those of the long-bone group (Rg > 1.0 mm), thus the solution for image-guided pelvis tumour resection surgery and that for image-guided long-bone tumour resection surgery should be separately determined. In order to suppress these negative surgical errors when using a navigation system, we recommend to add extra 3.95 mm margin with the empirical safe margin for image-guided pelvis tumour resection surgery and to add extra 2.69 mm margin for image-guided long-bone tumour resection surgery during pre-operatively planning cut planes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32219496What 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.