Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35887581›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022

The Accuracy of Patient-Specific Spinal Drill Guides Is Non-Inferior to Computer-Assisted Surgery: The Results of a Split-Spine Randomized Controlled Trial.

Peter A J Pijpker, Jos M A Kuijlen, Katalin Tamási, D L Marinus Oterdoom, Rob A Vergeer, Gijs Rijtema, Maarten H Coppes, Joep Kraeima, Rob J M Groen

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical applications of 3D printing in spine surgery: a systematic review.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
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter A J PijpkerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9543-1097
Jos M A KuijlenDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Katalin TamásiDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9391-4597
D L Marinus OterdoomDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Rob A VergeerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gijs RijtemaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Maarten H CoppesDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Joep Kraeima3D-Lab, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Rob J M GroenDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, patient-specific spinal drill guides (3DPGs) have gained widespread popularity. Several studies have shown that the accuracy of screw insertion with these guides is superior to that obtained using the freehand insertion technique, but there are no studies that make a comparison with computer-assisted surgery (CAS). The aim of this study was to determine whether the accuracy of insertion of spinal screws using 3DPGs is non-inferior to insertion via CAS. A randomized controlled split-spine study was performed in which 3DPG and CAS were randomly assigned to the left or right sides of the spines of patients undergoing fixation surgery. The 3D measured accuracy of screw insertion was the primary study outcome parameter. Sixty screws inserted in 10 patients who completed the study protocol were used for the non-inferiority analysis. The non-inferiority of 3DPG was demonstrated for entry-point accuracy, as the upper margin of the 95% CI (−1.01 mm−0.49 mm) for the difference between the means did not cross the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 1 mm (p < 0.05). We also demonstrated non-inferiority of 3D angular accuracy (p < 0.05), with a 95% CI for the true difference of −2.30°−1.35°, not crossing the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 3° (p < 0.05). The results of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that 3DPGs provide a non-inferior alternative to CAS in terms of screw insertion accuracy and have considerable potential as a navigational technique in spinal fixation.

Indexed as

3D-printingcomputer-assisted surgerydrill guidesimage-guided navigationimage-guided surgerylateral mass screwpatient-specific instrumentationpedicle screwspine surgeryvirtual surgical planning (VSP)

Identifiers

PMID35887581
PMCPMC9317516
OpenAlexW4283741921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.