ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2020
Accuracy and Reliability of Computer-aided Anatomical Measurements for Vertebral Body and Disc Based on Computed Tomography Scans.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scan/rescan reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).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
- Development of a spinopelvic complex finite element model for quantitative analysis of the biomechanical response of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2025Article
- Dentoskeletal characteristics of non-syndromic pierre robin sequence and isolated incomplete cleft palate children: a retrospective case control study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Automatic measurement of anatomical parameters of the lumbar vertebral body and the intervertebral disc on radiographs by deep learning.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based quantitative morphological study of anteroposterior digital radiographs of the lumbar spine.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- 3D-Printed Patient-Customized Artificial Vertebral Body for Spinal Reconstruction after TotalInternational journal of bioprinting · 2022Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether the computed tomography (CT)-based method of three-dimensional (3D) analysis (Mimics) was accurate and reliable for spine surgical anatomical measurements.
methodsA total of 40 lumbar segments and 32 inter-vertebral discs from eigth adult male cadavers without fractures or deformities fixed with the classical formaldehyde method were included in this research on 5 June 2017. CT scans including seven dimensions: anterior height of the vertebral body (VBHa), middle height of the vertebral body (VBHm), posterior height of the vertebral body (VBHp), width of the upper endplate (EPWu), depth of the upper endplate (EPDu), anterior height of the inter-vertebral disc in the median sagittal plane (IDHa), and posterior height of the inter-vertebral disc in the median sagittal plane (IDHp). They were performed based on uniform conditions (slice thickness: 0.625 mm) using a CT scanner on 8 June 2017. Afterwards, the surgical anatomical measurements were conducted with a Vernier caliper on 12 June 2017. The computer-aided anatomical measurements were conducted by three investigators using Mimics 16.0 to perform 3D reconstructions of CT bone on 16 June 2017. Finally, the length and angle were measured with associated measurement tools, yielding a verified accuracy of 0.01 mm and 0.01°, respectively. Each measurement was repeated three times, and all anatomical data was analyzed using the statistical software and P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe results showed no statistically significant difference was observed between the surgical anatomical and computer-aided anatomical measurements (P > 0.05) for lumbar vertebra measurements, and the absolute difference between surgical and computer-aided data were all less than 1.0 mm (for the VBHa, VBHm, VBHp, EPWu, and EPDu were 0.12, 0.03, 0.03, 0.31, and 0.03 mm, respectively). Moreover, although the absolute differences of discs was larger than those of lumbar vertebras, no significant differences were detected between the computer-aided and surgical anatomical measurements for the IDHa, as well as IDHp in the vast majority of measurements (P = 0.543, 0.079 or 0.052 for IDHa, and P = 0.212, 0.133 or 0.042 for IDHp). In addition, excellent reliability correlation was observed between the measurements of each investigator, and the reliability coefficients in the intra-groups were all greater than 0.9 except for IDHp (reliability coefficient = 0.892). Additionally, the reliability coefficients were greater than 0.9 for the all between-group correlations, and a significant correlation was also observed. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference for three anatomical values was found in the computer-assisted measurements of the lumbar bone structure (P > 0.05). Similarly, we did not observe a statistical difference in the anatomical data of the lumbar discs from the three measures (P > 0.05).
conclusionsComputer-aided anatomical measurement for spine based on CT scans presents the high accuracy and reliability for improving spinal surgical procedures.
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.