ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2021
Pedicle subtraction osteotomy with patient-specific instruments.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the utility of patient-specific instruments (PSI) has been well established for complex osteotomies in orthopedic surgery, it is yet to be comparatively analyzed for complex spinal deformity correction, such as pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO).
methodsSix thoracolumbar human cadavers were used to perform nine PSOs using the free-hand (FH) technique and nine with PSI (in total 18 PSOs). Osteotomy planes were planned on the basis of preoperative computed tomography (CT). A closing-wedge angle of 30° was targeted for each PSO. Postoperative CT scans were obtained to measure segmental lordosis correction and the deviation from the planned 30° correction as well as the osseous gap of posterior elements.
resultsThe time required to perform a PSO was 18:22 (range 10:22-26:38) min and 14:14 (range 10:13-22:16) min in the PSI and FH groups, respectively (p = 0.489). The PSI group had a significantly higher lordosis gain (29°, range 23-31° vs. 21°, range 13-34°; p = 0.015). The lordosis gain was significantly more accurate with PSI (deviation angle: 1°; range 0-7°) than with the FH technique (9°; range 4-17°; p = 0.003). PSI achieved a significantly smaller residual osseous gap of the posterior elements (5 mm; range 0-9 mm) than the FH group (11 mm; range 3-27 mm; p = 0.043).With PSI, an angular difference of 3° (range 1-12°), a translational offset of 1 (range 0-6) mm at the level of the lamina, and a vertebral body entry point deviation of 1 (range 0-4) mm was achieved in the osteotomies.
conclusionsPSI-guided PSO can be a more feasible and accurate approach in achieving a planned lordosis angle than the traditional FH technique in a cadaver model. This approach further reduced osseous gaps, potentially promoting higher fusion rates in vivo.
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.