Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34675032›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2021

Image Guidance in Spinal Surgery: A Critical Appraisal and Future Directions.

Fabian Sommer, Jacob L Goldberg, Lynn McGrath, Sertac Kirnaz, Branden Medary, Roger Härtl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Risk factors for facet joint violation in minimally invasive and open lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Navigation Techniques in Endoscopic Spine Surgery.BioMed research international · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fabian SommerDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Jacob L GoldbergDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Lynn McGrathDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Sertac KirnazDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Branden MedaryDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Roger HärtlDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImage-guided spinal surgery (IGSS) underwent rapid development over the past decades. The goal of IGSS is to increase patient safety and improve workflow. We present an overview of the history of IGSS, illustrate its current state, and highlight future developments. Currently, IGSS requires an image set, a tracking system, and a calibration method. IMAGING: Two-dimensional images have many disadvantages as a source for navigation. Currently, the most common navigation technique is three-dimensional (3D) navigation based on cross-sectional imaging techniques such as cone-beam computed tomography (CT) or fan-beam CT. TRACKING: Electromagnetic tracking uses an electromagnetic field to localize instruments. Optical tracking using infrared cameras has currently become one of the most common tracking methods in IGSS. CALIBRATION: The three most common techniques currently used are the point-matching registration technique, the surface-matching registration technique, and the automated registration technique. FUTURE: Augmented reality (AR) describes a computer-generated image that can be superimposed onto the real-world environment. Marking pathologies and anatomical landmarks are a few examples of many possible future applications. Additionally, AR offers a wide range of possibilities in surgical training. The latest development in IGSS is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). The presently available data on RAS are very encouraging, but further improvements of these procedures is expected.

conclusionIGSS significantly evolved since its inception and is becoming a routinely used technology. In the future, IGSS will combine the advantages of "active/freehand 3D navigation" with AR and RAS and will one day find its way into all aspects of spinal surgery, not only in instrumented procedures.

Indexed as

augmented realitycalibrationimage-guided surgerynavigationroboticspine surgerytracking

Identifiers

PMID34675032
PMCPMC8532534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.