Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37870680›Full record

ArticleSpine deformity2024

Radiation exposure in navigated techniques for AIS: is there a difference between pre-operative CT and intraoperative CT?

Mikaela H Sullivan, Lifeng Yu, Beth A Schueler, Ahmad Nassr, Julie Guerin, Todd A Milbrandt, A Noelle Larson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Spine deformity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Enabling Technologies for Pedicle Screw Placement in Pediatric Spine Surgery.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mikaela H SullivanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3769-016X
Lifeng YuDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Beth A SchuelerDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ahmad NassrDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Julie GuerinDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Todd A MilbrandtDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
A Noelle LarsonDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. larson.noelle@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUtilization of navigation improves pedicle screw accuracy in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Our center switched from intraoperative CT (ICT) to an optical navigation system that utilizes pre-operative CT (PCT). We aim to evaluate the radiation dose and operative time for low-dose ICT compared to standard and low-dose PCT used for optical navigation in AIS patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion.

methodsA single-center matched-control cohort study of 38 patients was conducted. Nineteen patients underwent ICT navigation (O-arm) and were matched by sex, age, and weight to 19 patients who underwent PCT for use with an optical-guided navigation (7D, Seaspine). A total of 418 levels were instrumented and reviewed. PCT was either a standard dose (N = 7) or a low dose (N = 12). The mean volume CT dose index, dose-length product, overall effective dose (ED), ED per level instrumented, and operative time per level were compared.

resultsED per level instrumented was 0.061 ± 0.029 mSv in low-dose PCT and 0.14 ± 0.05 mSv in low-dose ICT (p < 0.0001). ED per level instrumented was significantly higher in standard PCT (1.46 ± 0.39 vs. 0.14 ± 0.03 mSv; p < 0.0001). Mean operative time per level was 31 ± 7 min for ICT and 33 ± 3 min for PCT (p = 0.628).

conclusionLow-dose PCT resulted in 0.70 mSv exposure per case and 31 min per level, standard-dose was 16.95 mSv, while ICT resulted in 1.34-1.62 mSv and a similar operative time. Use of a standard-dose PCT involves radiation exposure about 9 times higher than ICT and 23 times higher than low-dose PCT per level instrumented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Indexed as

KyphosisRadiation ExposureScoliosisSurgery, Computer-AssistedAdolescentCohort StudiesHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalTomography, X-Ray ComputedC-armCT-guided navigationIntraoperative CTO-armOptical navigation systemPreoperative CTRadiation exposureScoliosisSpinal deformitySpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID37870680
OpenAlexW4387865938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.