Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35933556›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Vacuum curette lumbar discectomy mechanics for use in spine surgical training simulators.

Trevor Cotter, Rosaire Mongrain, Mark Driscoll

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Trevor CotterMusculoskeletal Biomechanics Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, H3A 0C4, Canada.
Rosaire MongrainMusculoskeletal Biomechanics Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, H3A 0C4, Canada.
Mark DriscollMusculoskeletal Biomechanics Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, H3A 0C4, Canada. mark.driscoll@mcgill.ca.
McGill University · CAMontreal General Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simulation in surgical training is a growing field and this study aims to understand the force and torque experienced during lumbar spine surgery to design simulator haptic feedback. It was hypothesized that force and torque would differ among lumbar spine levels and the amount of tissue removed by ≥ 7%, which would be detectable to a user. Force and torque profiles were measured during vacuum curette insertion and torsion, respectively, in multiple spinal levels on two cadavers. Multiple tests per level were performed. Linear and torsional resistances of 2.1 ± 1.6 N/mm and 5.6 ± 4.3 N mm/°, respectively, were quantified. Statistically significant differences were found in linear and torsional resistances between all passes through disc tissue (both p = 0.001). Tool depth (p < 0.001) and lumbar level (p < 0.001) impacted torsional resistance while tool speed affected linear resistance (p = 0.022). Average differences in these statistically significant comparisons were ≥ 7% and therefore detectable to a surgeon. The aforementioned factors should be considered when developing haptic force and torque feedback, as they will add to the simulated lumbar discectomy realism. These data can additionally be used inform next generation tool design. Advances in training and tools may help improve future surgeon training.

Indexed as

DiskectomySpinal DiseasesComputer SimulationHumansLumbar VertebraeSurgical InstrumentsVacuum

Identifiers

PMID35933556
PMCPMC9357010
OpenAlexW4290018018

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.