ReviewUnfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023
[Innovative 3D imaging].
Review in Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of intraoperative CT to determine implant position in the feline vertebral spine.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Transforming spinal surgery: five years of navigation, workflow optimization and clinical impact.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- [Intraoperative navigation of a distraction injury of the thoracic spine with very severe scoliotic alterations].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intraoperative 2D fluoroscopy is often performed for repositioning and implant control. However, this does not always provide the details needed to reliably detect joint steps or incorrect repositioning. Over the last few years, intraoperative 3D imaging has been established and further developed. Multiple studies demonstrate an advantage and better intraoperative control through 3D imaging. Examples are the upper ankle, the proximal tibia and the distal radius; the rates of intraoperative revisions with digital volume tomography (DVT) are between 20-30%. Technical advancements, such as metal artifact reductions, automated plane setting, automated screw detection, and robotic DVT devices, facilitate intraoperative operation, shorten surgical time, and provide improved image quality. By processing the data sets in the form of an immersive, computer-simulated image in terms of "augmented reality" (AR), increased precision can be achieved intraoperatively while reducing radiation exposure. The implementation of these systems is associated with costs, which are offset by cost savings from avoided revisions. Adequate counter-financing is still lacking at the present time. Intraoperative 3D imaging represents an important tool for intraoperative control. The current data situation makes it necessary to address the routine use of 3D procedures, especially in the joint area. The indications are becoming increasingly broader. Technical innovations such as robotics and AR have significantly improved 3D devices in recent years and offer high potential for integration into the OR.
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.