ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2021
Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement Comparing an Electronic Conductivity Device and a Multi-axis Angiography Unit with C-arm Fluoroscopy in Lumbar Fixation Surgery for Safety.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lumbar spinal stenosis: current concept of management.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Spine Surgery with Electronic Conductivity Device: A Prospectively Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial and Literature Review.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, safety, and usefulness of percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement for lumbar fixation using a multi-axis angiography unit (MAU) and an electronic conductivity device (ECD) with a cannulated Jamshidi needle with that using a conventional C-arm. Of 65 cases that underwent lumbar fixation (region between L1-S1) during April 2013 to March 2019, 57 cases that could be followed-up for more than 12 months after the procedure were included. Among them, 31 patients (150 screws) received treatment with MAU and ECD (MAU+ECD group) and 26 (117 screws) were treated with the conventional C-arm. We performed a retrospective study of the surgical techniques used in each group at our institute by assessing the accuracy of PPS using Gertzbin-Robbins classification and the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score for recovery. There was no significant difference in surgery outcome based on the JOA recovery rate. There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of Accuracy-1 (Group A indicating accuracy and Groups B-E indicating inaccuracy), where the rates were 85.3% and 72.0% in the MAU+ECD group and C-arm group, respectively (P = 0.008). There was also a significant difference between the two groups in terms of Accuracy-2 (Groups A-B indicating accuracy; Groups C-E indicate inaccuracy), where the rates were 98.0% and 92.4% in the MAU+ECD and C-arm groups, respectively (P = 0.036). A combination of MAU and ECD is a safe and accurate method for inserting screws into the pedicle.
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.