ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Radiation exposure for pedicle screw placement with three different navigation system and imaging combinations in a sawbone model.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An innovative 2D optical navigation workflow for percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in thoracolumbar fractures: comparison with O-arm 3D navigation.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- A single-centre early experience of the Pulse™ navigation system for posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).Spine deformity · 2025Article
- Electromagnetic Navigation in Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Spine Surgery.Spine surgery and related research · 2025Article
- Comparison of different imaging devices and navigation systems for cervical pedicle screw placement: an experimental study on screw accuracy, screw placement time and radiation dose.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies have shown that pedicle screw placement using navigation can potentially reduce radiation exposure of surgical personnel compared to conventional methods. Spinal navigation is based on an interaction of a navigation software and 3D imaging. The 3D image data can be acquired using different imaging modalities such as iCT and CBCT. These imaging modalities vary regarding acquisition technique and field of view. The current literature varies greatly in study design, in form of dose registration, as well as navigation systems and imaging modalities analyzed. Therefore, the aim of this study was a standardized comparison of three navigation and imaging system combinations in an experimental setting in an artificial spine model.
methodsIn this experimental study dorsal instrumentation of the thoracolumbar spine was performed using three imaging/navigation system combinations. The system combinations applied were the iCT/Curve, cCBCT/Pulse and oCBCT/StealthStation. Referencing scans were obtained with each imaging modality and served as basis for the respective navigation system. In each group 10 artificial spine models received bilateral dorsal instrumentation from T11-S1. 2 referencing and control scans were acquired with the CBCTs, since their field of view could only depict up to five vertebrae in one scan. The field of view of the iCT enabled the depiction of T11-S1 in one scan. After instrumentation the region of interest was scanned again for evaluation of the screw position, therefore only one referencing and one control scan were obtained. Two dose meters were installed in a spine bed ventral of L1 and S1. The dose measurements in each location and in total were analyzed for each system combination. Time demand regarding screw placement was also assessed for all system combinations.
resultsThe mean radiation dose in the iCT group measured 1,6 ± 1,1 mGy. In the cCBCT group the mean was 3,6 ± 0,3 mGy and in the oCBCT group 10,3 ± 5,7 mGy were measured. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant (p < 0.0001) difference between the three groups. The multiple comparisions by the Kruskall-Wallis test showed no significant difference for the comparison of iCT and cCBCT (p
conclusionUnder standardized conditions oCBCT navigation demanded twice as much radiation as the cCBCT for the same number of scans, while the radiation exposure measured for the iCT and cCBCT for one scan was comparable. Yet, time effort was significantly less for oCBCT based navigation. However, for transferability into clinical practice additional studies should follow evaluating parameters regarding feasibility and clinical outcome under standardized conditions.
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.