ReviewOrthopaedic surgery2023
Spine Surgery with Electronic Conductivity Device: A Prospectively Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial and Literature Review.
Review in Orthopaedic surgery, 2023. 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted technique versus freehand technique for spine surgery: an umbrella review.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveImproving accuracy and safety of pedicle screw placement is of great clinical importance. Electronic conductivity device (ECD) can be a promising technique with features of affordability, portability, and real-time detection capabilities. This study aimed to validate the safety and effectiveness of a modified ECD.
methodsThe ECD underwent a modification where six lamps of various colors, and it was utilized in a prospectively multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial involving 96 patients across three hospitals from June 2018 to December 2018. The trial incorporated a self-control randomization with an equal distribution of left or right side of vertebral pedicle among two groups: the free-hand group and the ECD group. A total of 496 pedicle screws were inserted, with 248 inserted in each group. The primary outcomes focused on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement and the frequency of intraoperative X-rays. Meanwhile, the secondary indicator measured the time required for pedicle screw placement. Results were presented as means ± SD. Paired samples t-test and χ
resultsBaseline patient characteristics were recorded. The primary accuracy outcome revealed a 96.77% accuracy rate in the ECD group, compared to a 95.16% accuracy rate in the free-hand group, with no significant differences noted. In contrast, ECD demonstrated a significant reduction in radiation exposure frequency when compared to the free-hand group (1.11 ± 0.32 vs. 1.30 ± 0.53; p < 0.001), resulting in a 14.6% reduction. Moreover, ECD displayed a decrease of 30.38% in insertion time (70.88 ± 30.51 vs. 101.82 ± 54.00 s; p < 0.001). According to the results of the 21 studies, ECD has been utilized in various areas of the spine such as the atlas, thoracic and lumbar spine, as well as sacral 2-alar-iliac. The accuracy of ECD ranged from 85% to 100%.
conclusionThe prospectively randomized trial and the review indicate that the use of ECD presents a secure and precise approach to the placement of pedicle screws, with the added benefit of reducing both procedure time and radiation exposure.
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.