ArticleBMC surgery2023
Does the intraoperative 3D-flat panel control of the planned implant position lead to an optimization and increased in safety in the anatomically demanding region C1/2?
Article in BMC surgery, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the applicability and advantages of intraoperative imaging using a 3D flat panel in the treatment of C1/2 instabilities. MATERIALS: Prospective single-centered study including surgeries at the upper cervical spine between 06/2016 and 12/2018. Intraoperatively thin K-wires were placed under 2D fluoroscopic control. Then an intraoperative 3D-scan was carried out. The image quality was assessed based on a numeric analogue scale (NAS) from 0 to 10 (0 = worst quality, 10 = perfect quality) and the time for the 3D-scan was measured. Additionally, the wire positions were evaluated regarding malpositions.
resultsA total of 58 patients were included (33f, 25 m, average age 75.2 years, r.:18-95) with pathologies of C2: 45 type II fractures according to Anderson/D'Alonzo with or without arthrosis of C1/2, 2 Unhappy triad of C1/2 (Odontoid fracture Type II, anterior or posterior C1 arch-fracture, Arthrosis C1/2) 4 pathological fractures, 3 pseudarthroses, 3 instabilities of C1/2 because of rheumatoid arthritis, 1 C2 arch fracture). 36 patients were treated from anterior [29 AOTAF (combined anterior odontoid and transarticular C1/2 screw fixation), 6 lag screws, 1 cement augmented lag screw] and 22 patients from posterior (regarding to Goel/Harms). The median image quality was 8.2 (r.: 6-10). In 41 patients (70.7%) the image quality was 8 or higher and in none of the patients below 6. All of those 17 patients the image quality below 8 (NAS 7 = 16; 27.6%, NAS 6 = 1, 1.7%), had dental implants. A total of 148 wires were analyzed. 133 (89.9%) showed a correct positioning. In the other 15 (10.1%) cases a repositioning had to be done (n = 8; 5.4%) or it had to be drawn back (n = 7; 4.7%). A repositioning was possible in all cases. The implementation of an intraoperative 3D-Scan took an average of 267 s (r.: 232-310 s). No technical problems occurred.
conclusionIntraoperative 3D imaging in the upper cervical spine is fast and easy to perform with sufficient image quality in all patients. Potential malposition of the primary screw canal can be detected by initial wire positioning before the Scan. The intraoperative correction was possible in all patients. Trial registration German Trials Register (Registered 10 August 2021, DRKS00026644-Trial registration: German Trials Register (Registered 10 August 2021, DRKS00026644- https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00026644 ).
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.