Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36747986›Full record

ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2023

Comparing radiation dose of image-guided techniques in lumbar fusion surgery with pedicle screw insertion; A systematic review.

I J M H Caelers, R C M Berendsen, R Droeghaag, N J J Pecasse, K Rijkers, W L W Van Hemert, R A De Bie, H Van Santbrink

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in North American Spine Society journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. First experience with a novel image guidance technology for posterior pedicle screw fixation: A cadaveric study on 2D/3D registration-based spine surgery.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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

I J M H CaelersCAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
R C M BerendsenDepartment of Medical Physics, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen/Heerlen, the Netherlands.
R DroeghaagDepartment of Orthopedic surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen/Heerlen, the Netherlands.
N J J PecasseBiomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the etherlands.
K RijkersDepartment of Neurosurgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen/Heerlen, the Netherlands.
W L W Van HemertDepartment of Orthopedic surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen/Heerlen, the Netherlands.
R A De BieCAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
H Van SantbrinkCAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Context: Fluoroscopic devices can be used to visualize subcutaneous and osseous tissue, a useful feature during pedicle screw insertion in lumbar fusion surgery. It is important that both patient and surgeon are exposed as little as possible, since these devices use potential harmful ionizing radiation. Purpose: This study aims to compare radiation exposure of different image-guided techniques in lumbar fusion surgery with pedicle screw insertion. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: Cochrane, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were used to acquire relevant studies. Eligibility criteria were lumbar and/or sacral spine, pedicle screw, mGray and/or Sievert and/or mrem, radiation dose and/or radiation exposure. Image-guided techniques were divided in five groups: conventional C-arm, C-arm navigation, C-arm robotic, O-arm navigation and O-arm robotic. Comparisons were made based on effective dose for patients and surgeons, absorbed dose for patients and surgeons and exposure. Risk of bias was assessed using the 2017 Cochrane Risk of Bias tool on RCTs and the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool on NRCTs. Level of evidence was assessed using the guidelines of Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2011. Results: A total of 1423 studies were identified of which 38 were included in the analysis and assigned to one of the five groups. Results of radiation dose per procedure and per pedicle screw were described in dose ranges. Conventional C-arm appeared to result in higher effective dose for surgeons, higher absorbed dose for patients and higher exposure, compared to C-arm navigation/robotic and O-arm navigation/robotic. Level of evidence was 3 to 4 in 29 studies. Risk of bias of RCTs was intermediate, mostly due to inadequate blinding. Overall risk of bias score in NRCTs was determined as 'serious'. Conclusions: Ranges of radiation doses using different modalities during pedicle screw insertion in lumbar fusion surgery are wide. Based on the highest numbers in the ranges, conventional C-arm tends to lead to a higher effective dose for surgeons, higher absorbed dose for patients and higher exposure, compared to C-arm-, and O-arm navigation/robotic. The level of evidence is low and risk of bias is fairly high. In future studies, heterogeneity should be limited by standardizing measurement methods and thoroughly describing the image-guided technique settings.

Indexed as

Absorbed doseEffective doseExposureImage-guided techniquesLumbar fusion surgeryPatientPedicle screwsRadiation doseSurgeonSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36747986
PMCPMC9898805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.