ArticleCureus2021
Are 3D Printing Templates an Advantage in Upper Thoracic Pedicle Screw Fixation?
Article in Cureus, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and factors of 3D-printed guide-assisted hollow screw internal fixation for femoral neck fractures in the elderly.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Preliminary evaluation of mixed reality navigation with single-vertebra registration in spinal surgery.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Article
- Three-dimensional digital design of orthopedic surgery for idiopathic scoliosis deformity: A case series.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Article
- Thoracic Pedicle Screw Placement Utilizing Hands-On Training Session on Three-Dimensional Models.Cureus · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study aims to compare the clinical results of patients with upper thoracic vertebral fractures treated with pedicle screw and posterior spinal fusion with preoperative surgical planning and 3-dimensional (3D) modeling and patients treated with freehand screws. Methods Fifty patients who underwent pedicle screw placement with a diagnosis of upper thoracic fracture between June 2018 and October 2020 were included in our study. Pedicle screws were used in 25 patients (group 1) after the planning was completed with the help of 3D preoperative printing and modeling. Pedicle screws were applied in 25 patients in the control group (group 2) using the freehand technique. Intraoperative bleeding amount, operation time, and correct screw placement data in both groups were recorded. Results The operation time was 134 ± 22 minutes for group 1 and 152 ± 38 minutes for group 2. The difference in operation times was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). Based on axial and sagittal reconstruction images, the accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement (grades 0 and 1) in group I was 96.6% compared to 83.6% in group II. The minor perforation rate (grade 1, <2 mm) was 5.8% in group I compared to 11.8% in group II. The moderate perforation rate (grade 2, 2-4 mm) was 3.4% in group I compared to 14% in group II. The severe perforation rate (grade 3, >4 mm) was 2.3% in group II; however, misplaced screws were not associated with neurological deficits. The difference in overall accuracy rates between the two groups was significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions For 3D models of upper thoracic pedicle screw insertion, guide plates can be produced inexpensively and individually. It provides a new method for the accurate placement of upper thoracic pedicle screws with high accuracy and secure use in screw insertion.
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.